ArticleFrontiers in computational neuroscience2023
Towards best practice of interpreting deep learning models for EEG-based brain computer interfaces.
Article in Frontiers in computational neuroscience, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Classifying Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder from Resting-State EEG Using Convolutional Neural Networks: A Pilot Study.Computational psychiatry (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2026Article
- Classifying Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder from Resting-State EEG using Convolutional Neural Networks: A Pilot Study.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025Article
- Research on Depression Recognition Model and Its Temporal Characteristics Based on Multiscale Entropy of EEG Signals.Entropy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- What does my network learn? Assessing interpretability of deep learning for EEG.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2025Article
- ID3RSNet: cross-subject driver drowsiness detection from raw single-channel EEG with an interpretable residual shrinkage network.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2024Article
- Article
- Deep learning interpretability in neuroimaging: A comprehensive survey and methodological recommendations.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: As deep learning has achieved state-of-the-art performance for many tasks of EEG-based BCI, many efforts have been made in recent years trying to understand what have been learned by the models. This is commonly done by generating a heatmap indicating to which extent each pixel of the input contributes to the final classification for a trained model. Despite the wide use, it is not yet understood to which extent the obtained interpretation results can be trusted and how accurate they can reflect the model decisions. Methods: We conduct studies to quantitatively evaluate seven different deep interpretation techniques across different models and datasets for EEG-based BCI. Results: The results reveal the importance of selecting a proper interpretation technique as the initial step. In addition, we also find that the quality of the interpretation results is inconsistent for individual samples despite when a method with an overall good performance is used. Many factors, including model structure and dataset types, could potentially affect the quality of the interpretation results. Discussion: Based on the observations, we propose a set of procedures that allow the interpretation results to be presented in an understandable and trusted way. We illustrate the usefulness of our method for EEG-based BCI with instances selected from different scenarios.
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.