Cited by 20EEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesGaze Tracking and Assistive TechnologyEmotion and Mood Recognition

Decoding visual motions from EEG using attention based RNN.

Open access
Yang, Dongxu, Liu, Yadong, Zhou, Zongtan, Yu, Yang, Liang, Xinbin·2020·Applied Sciences

Abstract

The main objective of this paper is to use deep neural networks to decode the electroencephalography (EEG) signals evoked when individuals perceive four types of motion stimuli (contraction, expansion, rotation, and translation). Methods for single-trial and multi-trial EEG classification are both investigated in this study. Attention mechanisms and a variant of recurrent neural networks (RNNs) are incorporated as the decoding model. Attention mechanisms emphasize task-related responses and reduce redundant information of EEG, whereas RNN learns feature representations for classification from the processed EEG data. To promote generalization of the decoding model, a novel online data augmentation method that randomly averages EEG sequences to generate artificial signals is proposed for single-trial EEG. For our dataset, the data augmentation method improves the accuracy of our model (based on RNN) and two benchmark models (based on convolutional neural networks) by 5.60%, 3.92%, and 3.02%, respectively. The attention-based RNN reaches mean accuracies of 67.18% for single-trial EEG decoding with data augmentation. When performing multi-trial EEG classification, the amount of training data decreases linearly after averaging, which may result in poor generalization. To address this deficiency, we devised three schemes to randomly combine data for network training. Accordingly, the results indicate that the proposed strategies effectively prevent overfitting and improve the correct classification rate compared with averaging EEG fixedly (by up to 19.20%). The highest accuracy of the three strategies for multi-trial EEG classification achieves 82.92%. The decoding performance for the methods proposed in this work indicates they have application potential in the brain–computer interface (BCI) system based on visual motion perception.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/app10165662

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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
Yang, D., Liu, Y., Zhou, Z., Yu, Y., & Liang, X.
Affiliations
National University of Defense Technology (CN)
Corresponding author
Liu, Yadong
Venue
Applied Sciences
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2020-08-14
Volume
10
Issue
16
Pages
5662
ISSN
2076-3417 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3049043038
Cited by
20
References
4
Citations by year
2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1
FWCI
1.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Applied Sciences (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
the National Natural Science Foundation of China (U19A2083)
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
visual motion perception, EEG decoding, attention-based recurrent neural network, single-trial EEG classification, online data augmentation, brain-computer interface, overfitting reduction

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