Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35030232›Full record

ArticlePloS one2022

Riemannian classification of single-trial surface EEG and sources during checkerboard and navigational images in humans.

Cédric Simar, Robin Petit, Nichita Bozga, Axelle Leroy, Ana-Maria Cebolla, Mathieu Petieau, Gianluca Bontempi, Guy Cheron

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. 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

8 authors.

Cédric SimarMachine Learning Group, Computer Science Department, Faculty of Sciences, Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), Brussels, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-6412-4163
Robin PetitMachine Learning Group, Computer Science Department, Faculty of Sciences, Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), Brussels, Belgium.
Nichita BozgaMachine Learning Group, Computer Science Department, Faculty of Sciences, Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), Brussels, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-8538-0262
Axelle LeroyLaboratory of Neurophysiology and Movement Biomechanics, Neuroscience Institute, Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), Brussels, Belgium.
Ana-Maria CebollaLaboratory of Neurophysiology and Movement Biomechanics, Neuroscience Institute, Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), Brussels, Belgium.
Mathieu PetieauLaboratory of Neurophysiology and Movement Biomechanics, Neuroscience Institute, Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), Brussels, Belgium.
Gianluca BontempiMachine Learning Group, Computer Science Department, Faculty of Sciences, Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), Brussels, Belgium.
Guy CheronLaboratory of Neurophysiology and Movement Biomechanics, Neuroscience Institute, Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), Brussels, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveDifferent visual stimuli are classically used for triggering visual evoked potentials comprising well-defined components linked to the content of the displayed image. These evoked components result from the average of ongoing EEG signals in which additive and oscillatory mechanisms contribute to the component morphology. The evoked related potentials often resulted from a mixed situation (power variation and phase-locking) making basic and clinical interpretations difficult. Besides, the grand average methodology produced artificial constructs that do not reflect individual peculiarities. This motivated new approaches based on single-trial analysis as recently used in the brain-computer interface field. APPROACH: We hypothesize that EEG signals may include specific information about the visual features of the displayed image and that such distinctive traits can be identified by state-of-the-art classification algorithms based on Riemannian geometry. The same classification algorithms are also applied to the dipole sources estimated by sLORETA. MAIN RESULTS AND SIGNIFICANCE: We show that our classification pipeline can effectively discriminate between the display of different visual items (Checkerboard versus 3D navigational image) in single EEG trials throughout multiple subjects. The present methodology reaches a single-trial classification accuracy of about 84% and 93% for inter-subject and intra-subject classification respectively using surface EEG. Interestingly, we note that the classification algorithms trained on sLORETA sources estimation fail to generalize among multiple subjects (63%), which may be due to either the average head model used by sLORETA or the subsequent spatial filtering failing to extract discriminative information, but reach an intra-subject classification accuracy of 82%.

Indexed as

AdultAlgorithmsBrain-Computer InterfacesElectroencephalographyEvoked Potentials, VisualFemaleHealthy VolunteersHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedMaleSignal Processing, Computer-AssistedVisual Perception

Identifiers

PMID35030232
PMCPMC8759639

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.