ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Machine Learning-Based Comparative Analysis of Subject-Independent EEG Data Classification Across Multiple Meditation and Non-Meditation Sessions.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this study, subject-independent (inter-subject), multiple-session electroencephalography (EEG) data classification was tested for loving-kindness meditation (LKM) and non-meditation. This is a novel study that extends our previous work on intra-subject, multiple-session classification. Here, two meditation techniques, LKM-Self and LKM-Other, were independently compared with non-meditation. For each mental task, five sessions of data collected from each of the twelve participants were placed in a common data pool, from which randomly selected session data were used for training and testing the machine learning algorithms. Three previously tested BCI pipelines were used. In each case, feature extraction was performed using common spatial patterns (CSPs), short-time Fourier transform (STFT), or a fusion of CSP and STFT, followed by classification using a neural network structure. This study was further divided into three cases, where two, three, or four session pairs were used to train the algorithms, and the remaining session pair was used for testing. For each individual instance, the test was repeated thirty times to generalize the results. Thus, a total of 9900 independent tests were conducted for the entire dataset. The mean classification accuracies obtained in this study were lower than those reported in our previous intra-subject classification study. For example, in LKM-Self/non-meditation classification using three session pairs with the CSP + STFT pipeline, the mean accuracy for all tests was 62.3%, with the bottom 50% at 46.0% and the top 50% at 78.3%, demonstrating variability across session selections. The corresponding intra-subject classification result for the same instance was 72.1%. For all other instances, a similar pattern was observed. Furthermore, when considering all mean accuracies obtained, in 83.3% of the instances, CSP + STFT produced better classification accuracies than CSP or STFT alone. At the same time, in 75.0% of the instances, increasing the number of training session pairs led to improved classification accuracies. This study demonstrates that the subject-independent, multiple-session EEG classification of meditation and non-meditation is feasible for specific session combinations. Further research is needed to confirm these findings across larger and more diverse participant groups. These findings provide a foundation for developing subject-independent algorithms that can guide long-term meditation practice.
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.