Cited by 1,138EEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesMuscle activation and electromyography studies

Single-trial analysis and classification of ERP components — A tutorial

Blankertz, Benjamin, Lemm, Steven, Treder, Matthias, Haufe, Stefan, Müller, Klaus-Robert·2011·NeuroImage

Abstract

Analyzing brain states that correspond to event related potentials (ERPs) on a single trial basis is a hard problem due to the high trial-to-trial variability and the unfavorable ratio between signal (ERP) and noise (artifacts and neural background activity). In this tutorial, we provide a comprehensive framework for decoding ERPs, elaborating on linear concepts, namely spatio-temporal patterns and filters as well as linear ERP classification. However, the bottleneck of these techniques is that they require an accurate covariance matrix estimation in high dimensional sensor spaces which is a highly intricate problem. As a remedy, we propose to use shrinkage estimators and show that appropriate regularization of linear discriminant analysis (LDA) by shrinkage yields excellent results for single-trial ERP classification that are far superior to classical LDA classification. Furthermore, we give practical hints on the interpretation of what classifiers learned from the data and demonstrate in particular that the trade-off between goodness-of-fit and model complexity in regularized LDA relates to a morphing between a difference pattern of ERPs and a spatial filter which cancels non task-related brain activity.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.06.048

Cites

85 of 85 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Blankertz, B., Lemm, S., Treder, M., Haufe, S., & Müller, K.-R.
Affiliations
  • Technische Universität Berlin (DE)
  • Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft (DE)
Corresponding author
Blankertz, Benjamin
Venue
NeuroImage
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2011-05
Volume
56
Issue
2
Pages
814-825
ISSN
1053-8119 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2152171700
Cited by
1,138
References
85
Citations by year
2026: 46 · 2025: 71 · 2024: 47 · 2023: 56 · 2022: 57 · 2021: 81 · 2020: 87 · 2019: 100 · 2018: 105 · 2017: 78 · 2016: 78 · 2015: 88 · 2014: 80 · 2013: 74 · 2012: 44
FWCI
31.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • NeuroImage (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Fraunhofer-Publica (Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (MU 987/3-1)
  • European Commission (ICT-216886)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › EEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Muscle activation and electromyography studies
Keywords
event-related potentials, single-trial classification, linear discriminant analysis, shrinkage estimation, covariance matrix estimation, regularization, spatial filtering, spatiotemporal patterns, trial-to-trial variability, artifact rejection, model complexity trade-off
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Brain, Brain Mapping, Electroencephalography, Evoked Potentials, Humans, Signal Processing, Computer-Assisted

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review