The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Multiclass Common Spatial Patterns and Information Theoretic Feature Extraction
Abstract
We address two shortcomings of the common spatial patterns (CSP) algorithm for spatial filtering in the context of brain--computer interfaces (BCIs) based on electroencephalography/magnetoencephalography (EEG/MEG): First, the question of optimality of CSP in terms of the minimal achievable classification error remains unsolved. Second, CSP has been initially proposed for two-class paradigms. Extensions to multiclass paradigms have been suggested, but are based on heuristics. We address these shortcomings in the framework of information theoretic feature extraction (ITFE). We show that for two-class paradigms, CSP maximizes an approximation of mutual information of extracted EEG/MEG components and class labels. This establishes a link between CSP and the minimal classification error. For multiclass paradigms, we point out that CSP by joint approximate diagonalization (JAD) is equivalent to independent component analysis (ICA), and provide a method to choose those independent components (ICs) that approximately maximize mutual information of ICs and class labels. This eliminates the need for heuristics in multiclass CSP, and allows incorporating prior class probabilities. The proposed method is applied to the dataset IIIa of the third BCI competition, and is shown to increase the mean classification accuracy by 23.4% in comparison to multiclass CSP.
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
Elements of Information Theory
Cover, T. M., & Thomas, J. A. (2005) · doi:10.1002/047174882x · Cited by 13,791
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
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
Brain Computer Interfaces, a Review
Nicolas-Alonso, L. F., & Gomez-Gil, J. (2012) · Sensors · doi:10.3390/s120201211 · Cited by 2,143
Filter Bank Common Spatial Pattern Algorithm on BCI Competition IV Datasets 2a and 2b
Ang, K. K., Chin, Z. Y., Wang, C., Guan, C., & Zhang, H. (2012) · Frontiers in Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnins.2012.00039 · Cited by 1,264
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
Multiclass Brain–Computer Interface Classification by Riemannian Geometry
Barachant, A., Bonnet, S., Congedo, M., & Jutten, C. (2012) · IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering · doi:10.1109/tbme.2011.2172210 · Cited by 878
A novel deep learning approach for classification of EEG motor imagery signals
Tabar, Y. R., & Halici, U. (2017) · Journal of Neural Engineering · doi:10.1088/1741-2560/14/1/016003 · Cited by 859
Metadata
- Authors
- Grosse-Wentrup, M., & Buss, M.
- Venue
- IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering
- Published
- 2008-08
- Volume
- 55
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 1991-2000
- ISSN
- 0018-9294 (ISSN-L)
- 1558-2531
- OpenAlex
- W1965769973
- Cited by
- 389
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 6.33
- 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.