Cited by 2,665EEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesGaze Tracking and Assistive TechnologyEmotion and Mood Recognition

A review of classification algorithms for EEG-based brain–computer interfaces

Open access
Lotte, F, Congedo, M, Lécuyer, A, Lamarche, F, Arnaldi, B·2007·Journal of Neural Engineering

Abstract

In this paper we review classification algorithms used to design brain-computer interface (BCI) systems based on electroencephalography (EEG). We briefly present the commonly employed algorithms and describe their critical properties. Based on the literature, we compare them in terms of performance and provide guidelines to choose the suitable classification algorithm(s) for a specific 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 · 10.1088/1741-2560/4/2/r01

Cites

91 of 91 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?

  • Each BCI paradigm relies on manual specification of signal processing, feature extraction and classification methods, requiring significant subject-matter expertise and/or a priori knowledge about the expected EEG signal.

    “each paradigm relies on manual specification of signal processing [7], feature extraction [8] and classification methods [9], a process which often requires significant subject-matter expertise and/or a priori knowledge about the expected EEG signal.”

    From EEGNet: a compact convolutional neural network for EEG-based brain-computer interfaces (2018) · cites this paper as [9]

    Section 2.2 says that choosing an appropriate classifier requires knowing the properties of available classifiers, and Section 4 provides guidelines for choosing one for a given BCI context. This supports the classification-method selection part attributed to [9], but the paper does not establish that every paradigm requires manual specification or that the process requires significant subject-matter expertise or prior knowledge of the expected EEG signal. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.81)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • SVM is known to have good generalization properties and to be insensitive to overtraining and to the curse-of-dimensionality, especially in the small data set.

    “Third, SVM is known to have good generalization properties and to be insensitive to overtraining and to the curse-of-dimensionality, especially in the small data set [25].”
  • The reliance on human expertise is a necessary problem to be solved in BCI processes.

    “The continuous development of EEG-BCI applications puts forward higher requirements for the processes of BCI, where the reliance on human expertise is a necessary problem to be solved [16].”

    From IENet: a robust convolutional neural network for EEG based brain-computer interfaces (2022) · cites this paper as [16]

    The Introduction describes automatic classification in EEG-BCI systems, and §2.2.2 identifies dimensionality and the bias–variance tradeoff as classification problems. Neither passage says that BCI processes rely on human expertise or that this reliance must be solved. Searches for expert, human intervention, and manual design found no passage addressing that point; page numbers were unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.70)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

2 of the 93 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 25

  1. Duda R O, 2001, Pattern Recognition
  2. Rakotomamonjy A Guigue V Mallet G Alvarado V, 2005, Int. Conf. on Artificial Neural Networks
  3. Penny W D Roberts S J, 1999, Proc. Int. Joint Conf. on Neural Networks
  4. Ng A Jordan M, 2002, Proc. Advances in Neural Information Processing
  5. Rubinstein Y D Hastie T, 1997, Proc. 3rd Int. Conf. on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining
  6. Jain A K, 1982, Handbook of Statistics, 2
  7. Blankertz B, 2002, Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. (NIPS 01), 14, 157
  8. Anderson C W Sijercic Z, 1996, Solving Engineering Problems with Neural Networks: Proc. Int. Conf. on Engineering Applications of Neural Networks (EANN'96)
  9. Palaniappan R, 2005, Proc. 2nd Int. IEEE EMBS Conf. on Neural Engineering
  10. Balakrishnan D Puthusserypady S, 2005, Proc. IEEE 31st Annual Northeast Bioengineering Conference
  11. Millán J R Mouriño J Cincotti F Babiloni F Varsta M Heikkonen J, 2000, IEEE-INNS-ENNS Int. Joint Conf. on Neural Networks
  12. Solhjoo S Moradi M H, 2004, BIOSIGNAL 2004 Int. EURASIP Conference
  13. Cincotti F Scipione A Tiniperi A Mattia D Marciani M G Millán J del R Salinari S Bianchi L Babiloni F, 2003, Proc. 1st Int. IEEE EMBS Conf. on Neural Engineering
  14. Barreto A B Taberner A M Vicente L M, 1996, Southeastcon '96. ‘Bringing Together Education, Science and Technology’, Proc. IEEE
  15. Hoya T Hori G Bakardjian H Nishimura T Suzuki T Miyawaki Y Funase A Cao J, 2003, Proc. ICA2003, 197
  16. Tavakolian K Rezaei S, 2004, Proc. IEEE Int. Workshop on Biomedical Circuits and Systems
  17. Barreto G A Frota R A de Medeiros F N S, 2004, Proc. IEEE Workshop on Machine Learning for Signal Processing
  18. Solhjoo S Nasrabadi A M Golpayegani M R H, 2005, Proc. European Signal Processing Conference
  19. Hoffmann U Garcia G Vesin J-M Diserens K Ebrahimi T, 2005, Conference Proc. 2nd Int. IEEE EMBS Conf. Neural Engineering
  20. Lee H Choi S, 2003, Proc. 7th Int. Symp. on Signal Processing and its Applications
  21. Lotte F, 2006, Proc. 3rd Int. Brain-Computer Interface Workshop and Training Course, 12
  22. Xu W Guan C Siong C E Ranganatha S Thulasidas M Wu J, 2004, 17th Int. Conf. on Pattern Recognition (ICPR'04), 2, 391
  23. Tavakolian K Vasefi F Naziripour K Rezaei S, 2006, Proc. Canadian Student Conf. on Biomedical Computing
  24. Arrouët C, 2004, J. Neurother.
  25. Garcia G Ebrahimi T Vesin J-M, 2002, 14th Int. Conf. on Digital Signal Processing (DSP2002)

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lotte, F., Congedo, M., Lécuyer, A., Lamarche, F., & Arnaldi, B.
Affiliations
  • Institut national de recherche en sciences et technologies du numérique (FR)
  • Orange (France) (FR)
Venue
Journal of Neural Engineering
Published
2007-01-31
Volume
4
Issue
2
Pages
R1-R13
ISSN
  • 1741-2552 (ISSN-L)
  • 1741-2560
OpenAlex
W2075647286
Cited by
2,665
References
93
Citations by year
2026: 81 · 2025: 115 · 2024: 90 · 2023: 109 · 2022: 129 · 2021: 167 · 2020: 178 · 2019: 200 · 2018: 254 · 2017: 184 · 2016: 197 · 2015: 197 · 2014: 172 · 2013: 159 · 2012: 136
FWCI
4.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Neural Engineering (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Agence Nationale de la Recherche
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › EEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Gaze Tracking and Assistive Technology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Emotion and Mood Recognition
Keywords
brain-computer interface, EEG, pattern classification, algorithm comparison
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Artificial Intelligence, Brain, Communication Devices for People with Disabilities, Communication Aids for Disabled, Electroencephalography, Evoked Potentials, Pattern Recognition, Automated, User-Computer Interface

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