Cited by 1,967Blind Source Separation TechniquesNeural Networks and ApplicationsEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces

Independent Component Analysis Using an Extended Infomax Algorithm for Mixed Subgaussian and Supergaussian Sources

Lee, Te-Won, Girolami, Mark, Sejnowski, Terrence J.·1999·Neural Computation

Abstract

An extension of the infomax algorithm of Bell and Sejnowski (1995) is presented that is able blindly to separate mixed signals with sub- and supergaussian source distributions. This was achieved by using a simple type of learning rule first derived by Girolami (1997) by choosing negentropy as a projection pursuit index. Parameterized probability distributions that have sub- and supergaussian regimes were used to derive a general learning rule that preserves the simple architecture proposed by Bell and Sejnowski (1995), is optimized using the natural gradient by Amari (1998), and uses the stability analysis of Cardoso and Laheld (1996) to switch between sub- and supergaussian regimes. We demonstrate that the extended infomax algorithm is able to separate 20 sources with a variety of source distributions easily. Applied to high-dimensional data from electroencephalographic recordings, it is effective at separating artifacts such as eye blinks and line noise from weaker electrical signals that arise from sources in the brain.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1162/089976699300016719

Cites

59 of 59 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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lee, T.-W., Girolami, M., & Sejnowski, T. J.
Affiliations
  • Salk Institute for Biological Studies (US)
  • University of the West of Scotland (GB)
  • Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Computational Neurobiology Laboratory, Salk Institute, La Jolla, CA 92037, U.S.A.
Venue
Neural Computation
Publisher
MIT Press
Published
1999-02-01
Volume
11
Issue
2
Pages
417-441
ISSN
  • 0899-7667 (ISSN-L)
  • 1530-888X
OpenAlex
W2105909330
Cited by
1,967
References
59
Citations by year
2026: 84 · 2025: 78 · 2024: 90 · 2023: 58 · 2022: 53 · 2021: 93 · 2020: 68 · 2019: 85 · 2018: 94 · 2017: 84 · 2016: 73 · 2015: 85 · 2014: 87 · 2013: 84 · 2012: 76
FWCI
60.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Neural Computation (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Cambridge University Engineering Department Publications Database (submittedVersion)
Funders
Howard Hughes Medical Institute
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Signal Processing › Blind Source Separation Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Neural Networks and Applications
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › EEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Keywords
independent component analysis, Infomax algorithm, negentropy, projection pursuit, natural gradient, learning rules, source separation, EEG artifact removal, eye blink artifacts, line noise, high-dimensional data
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Blinking, Brain, Electroencephalography, Humans, Models, Statistical, Normal Distribution, Artifacts

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