The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Beamforming in Noninvasive Brain–Computer Interfaces
Abstract
Spatial filtering (SF) constitutes an integral part of building EEG-based brain-computer interfaces (BCIs). Algorithms frequently used for SF, such as common spatial patterns (CSPs) and independent component analysis, require labeled training data for identifying filters that provide information on a subject's intention, which renders these algorithms susceptible to overfitting on artifactual EEG components. In this study, beamforming is employed to construct spatial filters that extract EEG sources originating within predefined regions of interest within the brain. In this way, neurophysiological knowledge on which brain regions are relevant for a certain experimental paradigm can be utilized to construct unsupervised spatial filters that are robust against artifactual EEG components. Beamforming is experimentally compared with CSP and Laplacian spatial filtering (LP) in a two-class motor-imagery paradigm. It is demonstrated that beamforming outperforms CSP and LP on noisy datasets, while CSP and beamforming perform almost equally well on datasets with few artifactual trials. It is concluded that beamforming constitutes an alternative method for SF that might be particularly useful for BCIs used in clinical settings, i.e., in an environment where artifact-free datasets are difficult to obtain.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Delorme, A., & Makeig, S. (2004) · Journal of Neuroscience Methods · doi:10.1016/j.jneumeth.2003.10.009 · Cited by 24,371
Brain–computer interfaces for communication and control
Wolpaw, J. R., Birbaumer, N., McFarland, D. J., Pfurtscheller, G., & Vaughan, T. M. (2002) · Clinical Neurophysiology · doi:10.1016/s1388-2457(02)00057-3 · Cited by 7,927
Optimizing Spatial filters for Robust EEG Single-Trial Analysis
Blankertz, B., Tomioka, R., Lemm, S., Kawanabe, M., & Muller, K.-R. (2008) · IEEE Signal Processing Magazine · doi:10.1109/msp.2008.4408441 · Cited by 2,080
Feature selection, L 1 vs. L 2 regularization, and rotational invariance
Ng, A. Y. (2004) · Twenty-first international conference on Machine learning - ICML '04 · doi:10.1145/1015330.1015435 · Cited by 1,572
Cited by
Regularizing Common Spatial Patterns to Improve BCI Designs: Unified Theory and New Algorithms
Lotte, F., & Guan, C. (2011) · IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering · doi:10.1109/tbme.2010.2082539 · Cited by 1,045
BCILAB: a platform for brain–computer interface development
Kothe, C. A., & Makeig, S. (2013) · Journal of Neural Engineering · doi:10.1088/1741-2560/10/5/056014 · Cited by 412
Lotte, F. (2015) · Proceedings of the IEEE · doi:10.1109/jproc.2015.2404941 · Cited by 327
Regularized Common Spatial Pattern With Aggregation for EEG Classification in Small-Sample Setting
Lu, H., Eng, H.-L., Guan, C., Plataniotis, K. N., & Venetsanopoulos, A. N. (2010) · IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering · doi:10.1109/tbme.2010.2082540 · Cited by 309
Online and Offline Domain Adaptation for Reducing BCI Calibration Effort
Wu, D. (2017) · IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems · doi:10.1109/thms.2016.2608931 · Cited by 114
Metadata
- Authors
- Grosse-Wentrup, M., Liefhold, C., Gramann, K., & Buss, M.
- Venue
- IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering
- Published
- 2009-04
- Volume
- 56
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 1209-1219
- ISSN
- 0018-9294 (ISSN-L)
- 1558-2531
- OpenAlex
- W2170124654
- Cited by
- 182
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 3.25
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.