Cited by 144EEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesGaze Tracking and Assistive TechnologyEmotion and Mood Recognition

Convolutional Neural Network for Multi-Category Rapid Serial Visual Presentation BCI

Open access
Manor, Ran, Geva, Amir B.·2015·Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience

Abstract

Brain computer interfaces rely on machine learning (ML) algorithms to decode the brain's electrical activity into decisions. For example, in rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP) tasks, the subject is presented with a continuous stream of images containing rare target images among standard images, while the algorithm has to detect brain activity associated with target images. Here, we continue our previous work, presenting a deep neural network model for the use of single trial EEG classification in RSVP tasks. Deep neural networks have shown state of the art performance in computer vision and speech recognition and thus have great promise for other learning tasks, like classification of EEG samples. In our model, we introduce a novel spatio-temporal regularization for EEG data to reduce overfitting. We show improved classification performance compared to our earlier work on a five categories RSVP experiment. In addition, we compare performance on data from different sessions and validate the model on a public benchmark data set of a P300 speller task. Finally, we discuss the advantages of using neural network models compared to manually designing feature extraction algorithms.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/fncom.2015.00146

Cites

43 of 43 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Prior P300 CNNs do not address the challenge of reducing the number of trainable parameters.

    “they do not address the challenge of reducing the number of trainable parameters.”

    From A Lightweight Multi-Scale Convolutional Neural Network for P300 Decoding: Analysis of Training Strategies and Uncovering of Network Decision (2021) · cites this paper as Manor and Geva, 2015

    The Introduction (page unavailable) says CNN weight sharing reduces the number of network parameters. Section 2.5 (page unavailable) says this paper’s P300 CNN shares filter weights across time, contrary to the claim that it does not address parameter reduction. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Shan et al. (2018) proved that an architecture with the first layer performing a mixed spatio-temporal convolution (OCLNN) improved decoding performance compared with the architecture proposed by Cecotti and Graser (2011) and other variants.

    “The authors proved that an architecture with the first layer performing a mixed spatio-temporal convolution (OCLNN) improved the decoding performance compared with the architecture proposed by Cecotti and Graser (2011) and other variants (Manor and Geva, 2015; Liu et al., 2018).”

    From A Lightweight Multi-Scale Convolutional Neural Network for P300 Decoding: Analysis of Training Strategies and Uncovering of Network Decision (2021) · cites this paper as Manor and Geva, 2015

    Results §3.3 reports slightly better P300 detection performance than Cecotti and Gräser (2011). But Methods §2.5 describes the first layer as spatial convolution, with temporal convolutions in later layers—not a mixed spatio-temporal first layer or an OCLNN comparison with other variants. The 2015 paper also cannot report a result by Shan et al. (2018). (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The Borra et al. (2020a) solution outperformed significantly a CNN derived from Manor and Geva (2015) with a spatial convolutional layer as the first layer, long short-term memories, and traditional ML approaches.

    “The solution of the authors outperformed significantly a CNN derived from Manor and Geva (2015) with a spatial convolutional layer as the first layer, long short-term memories, and traditional ML approaches (Simões et al., 2020).”
  • Prior P300 CNNs learn spatial features (spatial convolution across electrodes) and then temporal features in the next layers (temporal convolution across time samples).

    “they learn spatial features (i.e., spatial convolution, performed across electrodes) and then temporal features in the next layers (i.e., temporal convolution, performed across time samples)”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Manor, R., & Geva, A. B.
Affiliations
Ben-Gurion University of the Negev (IL)
Corresponding author
Manor, Ran
Venue
Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience
Published
2015-12-02
Volume
9
Pages
146-146
ISSN
1662-5188 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2238628508
Cited by
144
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 3
FWCI
5.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
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
brain-computer interface, rapid serial visual presentation, single-trial EEG classification, convolutional neural networks, spatio-temporal regularization, overfitting, P300 speller, multi-class classification, feature extraction

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