Cited by 96EEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesMuscle activation and electromyography studiesGaze Tracking and Assistive Technology

Data augmentation for self-paced motor imagery classification with C-LSTM.

Open access
Freer, Daniel, Yang, Guang-Zhong·2020·Journal of Neural Engineering

Abstract

Objective. Brain–computer interfaces (BCI) are becoming important tools for assistive technology, particularly through the use of motor imagery (MI) for aiding task completion. However, most existing methods of MI classification have been applied in a trial-wise fashion, with window sizes of approximately 2 s or more. Application of this type of classifier could cause a delay when switching between MI events. Approach. In this study, state-of-the-art classification methods for motor imagery are assessed offline with considerations for real-time and self-paced control, and a convolutional long-short term memory (C-LSTM) network based on filter bank common spatial patterns (FBCSP) is proposed. In addition, the effects of several methods of data augmentation on different classifiers are explored. Main results. The results of this study show that the proposed network achieves adequate results in distinguishing between different control classes, but both considered deep learning models are still less reliable than a Riemannian MDM classifier. In addition, controlled skewing of the data and the explored data augmentation methods improved the average overall accuracy of the classifiers by 14.0% and 5.3%, respectively. Significance. This manuscript is among the first to attempt combining convolutional and recurrent neural network layers for the purpose of MI classification, and is also one of the first to provide an in-depth comparison of various data augmentation methods for MI classification. In addition, all of these methods are applied on smaller windows of data and with consideration to ambient data, which provides a more realistic test bed for real-time and self-paced control.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1088/1741-2552/ab57c0

Cites

47 of 47 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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

2 of the 49 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Freer, D., & Yang, G.-Z.
Affiliations
  • Imperial College London (GB)
  • Shanghai Jiao Tong University (CN)
Corresponding author
Freer, Daniel
Venue
Journal of Neural Engineering
Published
2020-01-31
Volume
17
Issue
1
Pages
016041
ISSN
  • 1741-2552 (ISSN-L)
  • 1741-2560
OpenAlex
W2986650563
Cited by
96
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 8
FWCI
5.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Neural Engineering (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Spiral (Imperial College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EP/R026092/1)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › EEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Muscle activation and electromyography studies
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Gaze Tracking and Assistive Technology
Keywords
motor imagery classification, brain-computer interface, real-time control, convolutional LSTM, filter bank common spatial pattern, data augmentation, ambient data
MeSH terms
Data Science, Humans, Imagination, Motor Cortex, Movement, 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