ArticleScientific reports2023
Motor imagery classification using sparse representations: an exploratory study.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
The non-stationary nature of the EEG signal poses challenges for the classification of motor imagery. sparse representation classification (SRC) appears as an alternative for classification of untrained conditions and, therefore, useful in motor imagery. Empirical mode decomposition (EMD) deals with signals of this nature and appears at the rear of the classification, supporting the generation of features. In this work we evaluate the combination of these methods in a multiclass classification problem, comparing them with a conventional method in order to determine if their performance is regular. For comparison with SRC we use multilayer perceptron (MLP). We also evaluated a hybrid approach for classification of sparse representations with MLP (RSMLP). For comparison with EMD we used filtering by frequency bands. Feature selection methods were used to select the most significant ones, specifically Random Forest and Particle Swarm Optimization. Finally, we used data augmentation to get a more voluminous base. Regarding the first dataset, we observed that the classifiers that use sparse representation have results equivalent to each other, but they outperform the conventional MLP model. SRC and SRMLP achieve an average accuracy of [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] respectively while the MLP is [Formula: see text], representing a gain between [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text]. The use of EMD in relation to other feature processing techniques is not superior. However, EMD does not influence negatively, there is an opportunity for improvement. Finally, the use of data augmentation proved to be important to obtain relevant results. In the second dataset, we did not observe the same results. Models based on sparse representation (SRC, SRMLP, etc.) have on average a performance close to other conventional models, but without surpassing them. The best sparse models achieve an average accuracy of [Formula: see text] among the subjects in the base, while other model reach [Formula: see text]. The improvement of self-adaptive mechanisms that respond efficiently to the user's context is a good way to achieve improvements in motor imagery applications. However, other scenarios should be investigated, since the advantage of these methods was not proven in all datasets studied. There is still room for improvement, such as optimizing the dictionary of sparse representation in the context of motor imagery. Investing efforts in synthetically increasing the training base has also proved important to reduce the costs of this group of applications.
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.