4.4 Article

Comparison of DFT and lock-in amplifier features and search for optimal electrode positions in SSVEP-based BCI

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE METHODS
卷 168, 期 1, 页码 174-181

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2007.09.024

关键词

brain-computer interface (BCI); electroencephalogram (EEG); steady-state visual evoked potential (SSVEP)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) based on steady-state visual evoked potentials (SSVEPs) have been investigated increasingly in the last years. This type of brain signals resulting from repetitive flicker stimulation has the same fundamental frequency as the stimulation including higher harmonics. This study investigated how the classification accuracy of a 4-class BCI system can be improved by localizing individual electroencephalogram (EEG) recording positions. In the current work, a 4-class SSVEP-based BCI system was set up. Ten subjects participated and EEG was recorded from 21 channels overlying occipital areas. Features were extracted by applying Discrete Fourier transformation and a lock-in analyzer system. A simple one versus the rest classifier was applied to compare methods and localize individual electrode positions. It was shown that the use of three SSVEP-harmonics recorded from individual channels yielded significantly higher classification accuracy compared to one harmonic and to the standard positions O1 and O2. Furthermore, the application of a simple one versus the rest classifier and the use of a lock-in analyzer system lead to a higher classification accuracy (mean +/- S.D., about 74 +/- 16%) in a 4-class BCI compared to the commonly used Discrete Fourier transformation (DFT, 62 +/- 14%). By applying a screening procedure, the optimal electrode positions for bipolar derivations can be detected. Furthermore, information about subject's specific 'resonance-like' frequency regions can be obtained by observing higher harmonics of the SSVEPs. (c) 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据