Cited by 17EEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesEmotion and Mood RecognitionGaze Tracking and Assistive Technology

Single-trial P300 classification algorithm based on centralized multi-person data fusion CNN

Open access
Du, Pu, Li, Penghai, Cheng, Longlong, Li, Xueqing, Su, Jianxian·2023·Frontiers in Neuroscience

Abstract

Introduction: Currently, it is still a challenge to detect single-trial P300 from electroencephalography (EEG) signals. In this paper, to address the typical problems faced by existing single-trial P300 classification, such as complex, time-consuming and low accuracy processes, a single-trial P300 classification algorithm based on multiplayer data fusion convolutional neural network (CNN) is proposed to construct a centralized collaborative brain-computer interfaces (cBCI) for fast and highly accurate classification of P300 EEG signals. Methods: In this paper, two multi-person data fusion methods (parallel data fusion and serial data fusion) are used in the data pre-processing stage to fuse multi-person EEG information stimulated by the same task instructions, and then the fused data is fed as input to the CNN for classification. In building the CNN network for single-trial P300 classification, the Conv layer was first used to extract the features of single-trial P300, and then the Maxpooling layer was used to connect the Flatten layer for secondary feature extraction and dimensionality reduction, thereby simplifying the computation. Finally batch normalisation is used to train small batches of data in order to better generalize the network and speed up single-trial P300 signal classification. Results: In this paper, the above new algorithms were tested on the Kaggle dataset and the Brain-Computer Interface (BCI) Competition III dataset, and by analyzing the P300 waveform features and EEG topography and the four standard evaluation metrics, namely Accuracy, Precision, Recall and F1-score,it was demonstrated that the single-trial P300 classification algorithm after two multi-person data fusion CNNs significantly outperformed other classification algorithms. Discussion: The results show that the single-trial P300 classification algorithm after two multi-person data fusion CNNs significantly outperformed the single-person model, and that the single-trial P300 classification algorithm with two multi-person data fusion CNNs involves smaller models, fewer training parameters, higher classification accuracy and improves the overall P300-cBCI classification rate and actual performance more effectively with a small amount of sample information compared to other 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/fnins.2023.1132290

Cites

33 of 33 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?

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

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. He Q. Shao D. Wang Y. Zhang Y. Xie P. (2020). Analysis of motor imagery EEG signals and intention recognition based on multi-feature convolutional neural nets. J. Instrum. 41, 138– 146. 10.19650/j.cnki.cjsi.J1905522 · DOI
  2. Li Z. Lan Z. Tang D. Yan C. Xiang X. Zhou H. (2021). A review of target detection based on ERP signal. Comput. Eng. Appl. 23 37– 49.
  3. Tian K. Wang Z. (2019). The application of brain computer interface with multi brain coordination in music therapy. Technol. Mark. 26, 80– 81. 10.3969/j.issn.1006-8554.2019.08.030 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Du, P., Li, P., Cheng, L., Li, X., & Su, J.
Affiliations
Tianjin University of Technology (CN)
Corresponding author
  • Li, Penghai
  • Cheng, Longlong
Venue
Frontiers in Neuroscience
Published
2023-02-22
Volume
17
Pages
1132290-1132290
ISSN
1662-453X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4321497298
Cited by
17
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 2
FWCI
2.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Frontiers in Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • National Natural Science Foundation of China (19JCTPJC56000, 18JCYBJC95400, 61806146)
  • Natural Science Foundation of Tianjin City (19JCTPJC56000, 61806146, 18JCYBJC95400)
  • National Key Research and Development Program of China (2021YFF1200600)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › EEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Emotion and Mood Recognition
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Gaze Tracking and Assistive Technology
Keywords
convolutional neural networks, EEG classification, EEG topography, small sample classification

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