Cited by 74EEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesGaze Tracking and Assistive TechnologyNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies

Spatiotemporal Representations of Rapid Visual Target Detection: A Single-Trial EEG Classification Algorithm

Fuhrmann Alpert, Galit, Manor, Ran, Spanier, Assaf B., Deouell, Leon Y., Geva, Amir B.·2014·IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering

Abstract

Brain computer interface applications, developed for both healthy and clinical populations, critically depend on decoding brain activity in single trials. The goal of the present study was to detect distinctive spatiotemporal brain patterns within a set of event related responses. We introduce a novel classification algorithm, the spatially weighted FLD-PCA (SWFP), which is based on a two-step linear classification of event-related responses, using fisher linear discriminant (FLD) classifier and principal component analysis (PCA) for dimensionality reduction. As a benchmark algorithm, we consider the hierarchical discriminant component Analysis (HDCA), introduced by Parra, et al. 2007. We also consider a modified version of the HDCA, namely the hierarchical discriminant principal component analysis algorithm (HDPCA). We compare single-trial classification accuracies of all the three algorithms, each applied to detect target images within a rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP, 10 Hz) of images from five different object categories, based on single-trial brain responses. We find a systematic superiority of our classification algorithm in the tested paradigm. Additionally, HDPCA significantly increases classification accuracies compared to the HDCA. Finally, we show that presenting several repetitions of the same image exemplars improve accuracy, and thus may be important in cases where high accuracy is crucial.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/tbme.2013.2289898

Cites

28 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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

1 of the 29 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Fuhrmann Alpert, G., Manor, R., Spanier, A. B., Deouell, L. Y., & Geva, A. B.
Affiliations
  • Department of Psychology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel
  • Ben-Gurion University of the Negev (IL)
  • Hebrew University of Jerusalem (IL)
Venue
IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering
Published
2014-08
Volume
61
Issue
8
Pages
2290-2303
ISSN
  • 0018-9294 (ISSN-L)
  • 1558-2531
OpenAlex
W2042441570
Cited by
74
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 1
FWCI
1.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Israeli Defense Ministry
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › EEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Gaze Tracking and Assistive Technology
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Keywords
single-trial EEG classification, rapid serial visual presentation, visual target detection, event-related potentials, linear discriminant analysis, dimensionality reduction, brain-computer interface, object category recognition
MeSH terms
Adult, Algorithms, Electroencephalography, Evoked Potentials, Visual, Female, Humans, Male, Pattern Recognition, Automated, Photic Stimulation, Principal Component Analysis, Young Adult, Wavelet Analysis, 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