Cited by 34EEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesGaze Tracking and Assistive TechnologyEmotion and Mood Recognition

Single-trial EEG RSVP classification using convolutional neural networks

Shamwell, Jared, Lee, Hyungtae, Kwon, Heesung, Marathe, Amar R., Lawhern, Vernon, Nothwang, William·2016·SPIE Proceedings

Abstract

Traditionally, Brain-Computer Interfaces (BCI) have been explored as a means to return function to paralyzed or otherwise debilitated individuals. An emerging use for BCIs is in human-autonomy sensor fusion where physiological data from healthy subjects is combined with machine-generated information to enhance the capabilities of artificial systems. While human-autonomy fusion of physiological data and computer vision have been shown to improve classification during visual search tasks, to date these approaches have relied on separately trained classification models for each modality. We aim to improve human-autonomy classification performance by developing a single framework that builds codependent models of human electroencephalograph (EEG) and image data to generate fused target estimates. As a first step, we developed a novel convolutional neural network (CNN) architecture and applied it to EEG recordings of subjects classifying target and non-target image presentations during a rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP) image triage task. The low signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of EEG inherently limits the accuracy of single-trial classification and when combined with the high dimensionality of EEG recordings, extremely large training sets are needed to prevent overfitting and achieve accurate classification from raw EEG data. This paper explores a new deep CNN architecture for generalized multi-class, single-trial EEG classification across subjects. We compare classification performance from the generalized CNN architecture trained across all subjects to the individualized XDAWN, HDCA, and CSP neural classifiers which are trained and tested on single subjects. Preliminary results show that our CNN meets and slightly exceeds the performance of the other classifiers despite being trained across subjects.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1117/12.2224172

Cites

20 of 20 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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 21 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Shamwell, J., Lee, H., Kwon, H., Marathe, A. R., Lawhern, V., & Nothwang, W.
Affiliations
DEVCOM Army Research Laboratory (US)
Venue
SPIE Proceedings
Publisher
SPIE
Published
2016-05-25
Volume
9836
Pages
983622
ISSN
0277-786X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2401944605
Cited by
34
References
21
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 2
FWCI
8.00
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Proceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE (publishedVersion)
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
single-trial EEG classification, rapid serial visual presentation, convolutional neural networks, brain-computer interface, cross-subject generalization, multi-class classification, common spatial pattern

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