CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 74EEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesECG Monitoring and AnalysisDomain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning

Subject-Aware Contrastive Learning for Biosignals

Open access
Cheng, Joseph Y., Goh, Hanlin, Dogrusoz, Kaan, Tuzel, Oncel, Azemi, Erdrin·2020·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2007.04871arXiv 2007.04871
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Datasets for biosignals, such as electroencephalogram (EEG) and electrocardiogram (ECG), often have noisy labels and have limited number of subjects (<100). To handle these challenges, we propose a self-supervised approach based on contrastive learning to model biosignals with a reduced reliance on labeled data and with fewer subjects. In this regime of limited labels and subjects, intersubject variability negatively impacts model performance. Thus, we introduce subject-aware learning through (1) a subject-specific contrastive loss, and (2) an adversarial training to promote subject-invariance during the self-supervised learning. We also develop a number of time-series data augmentation techniques to be used with the contrastive loss for biosignals. Our method is evaluated on publicly available datasets of two different biosignals with different tasks: EEG decoding and ECG anomaly detection. The embeddings learned using self-supervision yield competitive classification results compared to entirely supervised methods. We show that subject-invariance improves representation quality for these tasks, and observe that subject-specific loss increases performance when fine-tuning with supervised labels.

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2007.04871

Cites

44 of 44 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?

  • Existing contrastive learning methods for time-series such as for EEG and ECG are proposed for specific applications and are not generalizable to other time-series data.

    “However, the above two methods are proposed for specific applications and they are not generalizable to other time-series data.”

    From Time-Series Representation Learning via Temporal and Contextual Contrasting (2021) · cites this paper as Cheng et al., 2020

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 45 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Cheng, J. Y., Goh, H., Dogrusoz, K., Tuzel, O., & Azemi, E.
ORCID
Cheng, Joseph Y.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2020
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2007.04871
arXiv
2007.04871
OpenAlex
W3040854424
Cited by
74
References
45
Citations by year
2025: 6 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 3
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › EEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › ECG Monitoring and Analysis
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Domain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning
Keywords
contrastive learning, physiological signals, EEG decoding, ECG anomaly detection, self-supervised learning, adversarial training, time series data augmentation, label noise, interindividual variability

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