ArticlePloS one2016
Comparing Features for Classification of MEG Responses to Motor Imagery.
Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 43 citations in OpenAlex.
- Decoding the Self: Single-Trial Prediction of Self-Boundary Meditation States From Magnetoencephalography Recordings.Human brain mapping · 2026Article
- Cortical signals analysis to recognize intralimb mobility using modified RNN and various EEG quantities.Heliyon · 2024Article
- Brain-computer interface paradigms and neural coding.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2023Review
- Article
- The effect of visual and proprioceptive feedback on sensorimotor rhythms during BCI training.PloS one · 2022Article
- Practical real-time MEG-based neural interfacing with optically pumped magnetometers.BMC biology · 2021Article
- A magnetoencephalography dataset for motor and cognitive imagery-based brain-computer interface.Scientific data · 2021Article
- Neural Decoding of Multi-Modal Imagery Behavior Focusing on Temporal Complexity.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2020Article
- Decoding Imagined and Spoken Phrases From Non-invasive Neural (MEG) Signals.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2020Article
- Visual and kinesthetic modes affect motor imagery classification in untrained subjects.Scientific reports · 2019Article
- Across-subject offline decoding of motor imagery from MEG and EEG.Scientific reports · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMotor imagery (MI) with real-time neurofeedback could be a viable approach, e.g., in rehabilitation of cerebral stroke. Magnetoencephalography (MEG) noninvasively measures electric brain activity at high temporal resolution and is well-suited for recording oscillatory brain signals. MI is known to modulate 10- and 20-Hz oscillations in the somatomotor system. In order to provide accurate feedback to the subject, the most relevant MI-related features should be extracted from MEG data. In this study, we evaluated several MEG signal features for discriminating between left- and right-hand MI and between MI and rest.
methodsMEG was measured from nine healthy participants imagining either left- or right-hand finger tapping according to visual cues. Data preprocessing, feature extraction and classification were performed offline. The evaluated MI-related features were power spectral density (PSD), Morlet wavelets, short-time Fourier transform (STFT), common spatial patterns (CSP), filter-bank common spatial patterns (FBCSP), spatio-spectral decomposition (SSD), and combined SSD+CSP, CSP+PSD, CSP+Morlet, and CSP+STFT. We also compared four classifiers applied to single trials using 5-fold cross-validation for evaluating the classification accuracy and its possible dependence on the classification algorithm. In addition, we estimated the inter-session left-vs-right accuracy for each subject.
resultsThe SSD+CSP combination yielded the best accuracy in both left-vs-right (mean 73.7%) and MI-vs-rest (mean 81.3%) classification. CSP+Morlet yielded the best mean accuracy in inter-session left-vs-right classification (mean 69.1%). There were large inter-subject differences in classification accuracy, and the level of the 20-Hz suppression correlated significantly with the subjective MI-vs-rest accuracy. Selection of the classification algorithm had only a minor effect on the results.
conclusionsWe obtained good accuracy in sensor-level decoding of MI from single-trial MEG data. Feature extraction methods utilizing both the spatial and spectral profile of MI-related signals provided the best classification results, suggesting good performance of these methods in an online MEG neurofeedback system.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.