Cited by 2,239EEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesEmotion and Mood RecognitionGaze Tracking and Assistive Technology

A review of classification algorithms for EEG-based brain–computer interfaces: A 10 year update

Open access
Lotte, F, Bougrain, L, Cichocki, A, Clerc, M, Congedo, M, Rakotomamonjy, A, Yger, F·2018·Journal of Neural Engineering

Abstract

Objective . Most current electroencephalography (EEG)-based brain–computer interfaces (BCIs) are based on machine learning algorithms. There is a large diversity of classifier types that are used in this field, as described in our 2007 review paper. Now, approximately ten years after this review publication, many new algorithms have been developed and tested to classify EEG signals in BCIs. The time is therefore ripe for an updated review of EEG classification algorithms for BCIs. Approach . We surveyed the BCI and machine learning literature from 2007 to 2017 to identify the new classification approaches that have been investigated to design BCIs. We synthesize these studies in order to present such algorithms, to report how they were used for BCIs, what were the outcomes, and to identify their pros and cons. Main results . We found that the recently designed classification algorithms for EEG-based BCIs can be divided into four main categories: adaptive classifiers, matrix and tensor classifiers, transfer learning and deep learning, plus a few other miscellaneous classifiers. Among these, adaptive classifiers were demonstrated to be generally superior to static ones, even with unsupervised adaptation. Transfer learning can also prove useful although the benefits of transfer learning remain unpredictable. Riemannian geometry-based methods have reached state-of-the-art performances on multiple BCI problems and deserve to be explored more thoroughly, along with tensor-based methods. Shrinkage linear discriminant analysis and random forests also appear particularly useful for small training samples settings. On the other hand, deep learning methods have not yet shown convincing improvement over state-of-the-art BCI methods. Significance . This paper provides a comprehensive overview of the modern classification algorithms used in EEG-based BCIs, presents the principles of these methods and guidelines on when and how to use them. It also identifies a number of challenges to further advance EEG classification in BCI.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1088/1741-2552/aab2f2

Cites

261 of 261 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • When the data dimension is too large, the Riemannian Geometry method performs many calculations, is time-consuming, and causes statistical deviations.

    “If the data dimension is too large, the Riemannian Geometry method will perform many calculations, which is time-consuming and causes statistical deviations [22].”

    From Transfer Learning Algorithm of P300-EEG Signal Based on XDAWN Spatial Filter and Riemannian Geometry Classifier (2020) · cites this paper as [22]

    The “Pros and cons” section (page unavailable) says that Riemannian approaches have high computational complexity as the number of electrodes grows, and that larger dimensions make the distance more prone to noise and numerical instability. This supports the computational-cost concern, but the passage does not establish that the calculations cause statistical deviations; it describes numerical problems and noise sensitivity instead. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • xDAWN+RG features perform well cross-subject but lack obvious physiological interpretation.

    “xDAWN spatial filtering [13] with Riemannian geometry (xDAWN+RG) features also perform well cross-subject [14], [15] but lack obvious physiological interpretation [8].”

    From ERP-XTTN: interpretable prototype-guided cross-attention for cross-subject ERP classification (2026) · cites this paper as [8]

    The citation to this paper is attached to the claim about physiological interpretation, not the cross-subject performance claim. Section 2.1 (page unavailable) says features from matrix or tensor decompositions may lack an obvious physical or physiological interpretation, but does not make that claim specifically about xDAWN+RG features. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • EEGNet has been evaluated across multiple BCI paradigms.

    “General-purpose deep learning architectures such as EEGNet [6], [7], [8] have been evaluated across multiple BCI paradigms”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

5 of the 266 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Allwein, 2001, Reducing multiclass to binary: A unifying approach for margin classifiers, J. Mach. Learn. Res., 1, 113
  2. Chevallier, 2018, Riemannian classification for SSVEP-based BCI, 10.1201/9781351231954-19 · DOI
  3. Guyon, 2003, An introduction to variable and feature selection, J. Mach. Learn. Res., 3, 1157

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lotte, F., Bougrain, L., Cichocki, A., Clerc, M., Congedo, M., Rakotomamonjy, A., & Yger, F.
Affiliations
  • Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
  • RIKEN Center for Brain Science (JP)
  • Skolkovo Institute of Science and Technology (RU)
  • Université Côte d'Azur (FR)
  • GIPSA-Lab (FR)
  • Laboratoire d'Informatique, du Traitement de l'Information et des Systèmes (FR)
  • Université Paris Sciences et Lettres (FR)
Corresponding author
Lotte, F
Venue
Journal of Neural Engineering
Published
2018-04-16
Volume
15
Issue
3
Pages
031005
ISSN
  • 1741-2552 (ISSN-L)
  • 1741-2560
OpenAlex
W2794345050
Cited by
2,239
References
266
Citations by year
2026: 320 · 2025: 284 · 2024: 262 · 2023: 283 · 2022: 276 · 2021: 321 · 2020: 273 · 2019: 170 · 2018: 49 · 2012: 1
FWCI
27.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Neural Engineering (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Base Institutionnelle de Recherche de l'université Paris-Dauphine (BIRD) (University Paris-Dauphine) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • Polish National Science Center (2016/20/W/N24/00354)
  • Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation (14.756.31.0001)
  • Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR-15-CE23-0013-01)
  • Japan Society for the Promotion of Science
  • H2020 European Research Council (ERC-2016-STG-714567)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › EEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Emotion and Mood Recognition
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Gaze Tracking and Assistive Technology
Keywords
EEG-based brain-computer interface, EEG classification, machine learning classifiers, adaptive classifier, unsupervised adaptation, transfer learning, deep learning, Riemannian geometry, random forest, small training samples
MeSH terms
Deep Learning, Algorithms, Animals, Brain, Electroencephalography, Humans, Signal Processing, Computer-Assisted, Time Factors, Brain-Computer Interfaces

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