Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38234474›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in neuroergonomics2023

Benchmarking framework for machine learning classification from fNIRS data.

Johann Benerradi, Jeremie Clos, Aleksandra Landowska, Michel F Valstar, Max L Wilson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in neuroergonomics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

5 authors.

Johann BenerradiSchool of Computer Science, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.
Jeremie ClosSchool of Computer Science, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.
Aleksandra LandowskaSchool of Computer Science, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.
Michel F ValstarSchool of Computer Science, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.
Max L WilsonSchool of Computer Science, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: While efforts to establish best practices with functional near infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) signal processing have been published, there are still no community standards for applying machine learning to fNIRS data. Moreover, the lack of open source benchmarks and standard expectations for reporting means that published works often claim high generalisation capabilities, but with poor practices or missing details in the paper. These issues make it hard to evaluate the performance of models when it comes to choosing them for brain-computer interfaces. Methods: We present an open-source benchmarking framework, BenchNIRS, to establish a best practice machine learning methodology to evaluate models applied to fNIRS data, using five open access datasets for brain-computer interface (BCI) applications. The BenchNIRS framework, using a robust methodology with nested cross-validation, enables researchers to optimise models and evaluate them without bias. The framework also enables us to produce useful metrics and figures to detail the performance of new models for comparison. To demonstrate the utility of the framework, we present a benchmarking of six baseline models [linear discriminant analysis (LDA), support-vector machine (SVM), k-nearest neighbours (kNN), artificial neural network (ANN), convolutional neural network (CNN), and long short-term memory (LSTM)] on the five datasets and investigate the influence of different factors on the classification performance, including: number of training examples and size of the time window of each fNIRS sample used for classification. We also present results with a sliding window as opposed to simple classification of epochs, and with a personalised approach (within subject data classification) as opposed to a generalised approach (unseen subject data classification). Results and discussion: Results show that the performance is typically lower than the scores often reported in literature, and without great differences between models, highlighting that predicting unseen data remains a difficult task. Our benchmarking framework provides future authors, who are achieving significant high classification scores, with a tool to demonstrate the advances in a comparable way. To complement our framework, we contribute a set of recommendations for methodology decisions and writing papers, when applying machine learning to fNIRS data.

Indexed as

benchmarkingdeep learningfNIRSguidelinesmachine learningneural networksopen access data

Identifiers

PMID38234474
PMCPMC10790918

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.