Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32562187›Full record

ReviewNeuroinformatics2021

Review of Riemannian Distances and Divergences, Applied to SSVEP-based BCI.

S Chevallier, E K Kalunga, Q Barthélemy, E Monacelli

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Neuroinformatics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Independent Filter Analysis for Group Discrimination in fMRI.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Frequency tagging of spatial attention using periliminal flickers.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

S ChevallierUniversité Paris-Saclay, UVSQ, LISV, 78124, Vélizy-Villacoublay, France. sylvain.chevallier@uvsq.fr.ORCID 0000-0003-3027-8241
E K KalungaOrderin, Cape Town, South Africa.ORCID 0000-0001-7522-5253
Q BarthélemyFoxstream, 69120, Vaulx-en-Velin, France.ORCID 0000-0002-7059-6028
E MonacelliUniversité Paris-Saclay, UVSQ, LISV, 78124, Vélizy-Villacoublay, France.ORCID 0000-0001-8659-7642

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The firstgeneration of brain-computer interfaces (BCI) classifies multi-channel electroencephalographic (EEG) signals, enhanced by optimized spatial filters.The second generation directly classifies covariance matrices estimated on EEG signals, based on straightforward algorithms such as the minimum-distance-to-Riemannian-mean (MDRM). Classification results vary greatly depending on the chosen Riemannian distance or divergence, whose definitions and reference implementations are spread across a wide mathematical literature. This paper reviews all the Riemannian distances and divergences to process covariance matrices, with an implementation compatible with BCI constraints. The impact of using different metrics is assessed on a steady-state visually evoked potentials (SSVEP) dataset, evaluating centers of classes and classification accuracy. Riemannian approaches embed crucial properties to process EEG data. The Riemannian centers of classes outperform Euclidean ones both in offline and online setups. Some Riemannian distances and divergences have better performances in terms of classification accuracy, while others have appealing computational efficiency.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsBrain-Computer InterfacesAnimalsElectroencephalographyHumansCovariance matricesDistancesDivergencesEEGRiemannian geometrySSVEP

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.