ArticleBrain informatics2023
Common spatial pattern for classification of loving kindness meditation EEG for single and multiple sessions.
Article in Brain informatics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Machine Learning-Based Comparative Analysis of Subject-Independent EEG Data Classification Across Multiple Meditation and Non-Meditation Sessions.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Novel machine learning-driven comparative analysis of CSP, STFT, and CSP-STFT fusion for EEG data classification across multiple meditation and non-meditation sessions in BCI pipeline.Brain informatics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
While a very few studies have been conducted on classifying loving kindness meditation (LKM) and non-meditation electroencephalography (EEG) data for a single session, there are no such studies conducted for multiple session EEG data. Thus, this study aims at classifying existing raw EEG meditation data on single and multiple sessions to come up with meaningful inferences which will be highly beneficial when developing algorithms that can support meditation practices. In this analysis, data have been collected on Pre-Resting (before-meditation), Post-Resting (after-meditation), LKM-Self and LKM-Others for 32 participants and hence allowing us to conduct six pairwise comparisons for the four mind tasks. Common Spatial Patterns (CSP) is a feature extraction method widely used in motor imaginary brain computer interface (BCI), but not in meditation EEG data. Therefore, using CSP in extracting features from meditation EEG data and classifying meditation/non-meditation instances, particularly for multiple sessions will create a new path in future meditation EEG research. The classification was done using Linear Discriminant Analysis (LDA) where both meditation techniques (LKM-Self and LKM-Others) were compared with Pre-Resting and Post-Resting instances. The results show that for a single session of 32 participants, around 99.5% accuracy was obtained for classifying meditation/Pre-Resting instances. For the 15 participants when using five sessions of EEG data, around 83.6% accuracy was obtained for classifying meditation/Pre-Resting instances. The results demonstrate the ability to classify meditation/Pre-Resting data. Most importantly, this classification is possible for multiple session data as well. In addition to this, when comparing the classification accuracies of the six mind task pairs; LKM-Self, LKM-Others and Post-Resting produced relatively lower accuracies among them than the accuracies obtained for classifying Pre-Resting with the other three. This indicates that Pre-Resting has some features giving a better classification indicating that it is different from the other three mind tasks.
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.