Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34827524›Full record

ReviewBrain sciences2021

Neural Decoding of EEG Signals with Machine Learning: A Systematic Review.

Maham Saeidi, Waldemar Karwowski, Farzad V Farahani, Krzysztof Fiok, Redha Taiar, P A Hancock, Awad Al-Juaid

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Brain sciences, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 63 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
63citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–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

63 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Machine-learning methods for epilepsy diagnosis and therapeutic prevention: advances, setbacks, and opportunities.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2026
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

3 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

7 authors.

Maham SaeidiComputational Neuroergonomics Laboratory, Department of Industrial Engineering and Management Systems, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL 32816, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7768-682X
Waldemar KarwowskiComputational Neuroergonomics Laboratory, Department of Industrial Engineering and Management Systems, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL 32816, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9134-3441
Farzad V FarahaniComputational Neuroergonomics Laboratory, Department of Industrial Engineering and Management Systems, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL 32816, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3196-6759
Krzysztof FiokComputational Neuroergonomics Laboratory, Department of Industrial Engineering and Management Systems, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL 32816, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5711-1498
Redha TaiarMATIM, Moulin de la Housse, Université de Reims Champagne Ardenne, CEDEX 02, 51687 Reims, France.ORCID 0000-0002-0227-3884
P A HancockDepartment of Psychology, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL 32816, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4936-066X
Awad Al-JuaidIndustrial Engineering Department, Taif University, Taif 26571, Saudi Arabia.ORCID 0000-0002-3793-4814

Funding

Taif University TURSP-2020/229
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Electroencephalography (EEG) is a non-invasive technique used to record the brain's evoked and induced electrical activity from the scalp. Artificial intelligence, particularly machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL) algorithms, are increasingly being applied to EEG data for pattern analysis, group membership classification, and brain-computer interface purposes. This study aimed to systematically review recent advances in ML and DL supervised models for decoding and classifying EEG signals. Moreover, this article provides a comprehensive review of the state-of-the-art techniques used for EEG signal preprocessing and feature extraction. To this end, several academic databases were searched to explore relevant studies from the year 2000 to the present. Our results showed that the application of ML and DL in both mental workload and motor imagery tasks has received substantial attention in recent years. A total of 75% of DL studies applied convolutional neural networks with various learning algorithms, and 36% of ML studies achieved competitive accuracy by using a support vector machine algorithm. Wavelet transform was found to be the most common feature extraction method used for all types of tasks. We further examined the specific feature extraction methods and end classifier recommendations discovered in this systematic review.

Indexed as

brain signals classificationdeep learningEEGmachine learningreview

Identifiers

PMID34827524
PMCPMC8615531

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.