arXivDaily arXiv每日学术速递 周一至周五更新
arXiv 2012.12473cs.LGcs.CVeess.IV
收藏

面向特定主题和独立主题的BCI分类算法比较

Comparison of Classification Algorithms Towards Subject-Specific and Subject-Independent BCI

Texas A&M University(德克萨斯农工大学)

Parisa Ghane, Narges Zarnaghi Naghsh, Ulisses Braga-Neto

摘要:

运动想象脑机接口设计被认为是困难的,由于受试者特定的数据汇集和校准的限制,以及苛刻的系统适应要求。最近,受试者无关(SI)的设计受到关注,因为他们可能适用于多个用户没有事先校准和严格的系统适应。SI设计具有挑战性,并且在文献中显示出较低的准确性。系统性能的两个主要因素是分类算法和可用数据的质量。本文提出了一种分类性能的SS和SI范式的比较研究。我们的研究结果表明,SS模型的分类算法表现出很大的差异。因此,可能需要每个受试者的不同分类算法。SI模型表现出较低的性能差异,但只有在样本量相对较大时才应使用。对于SI模型,LDA和CART分别在小样本和中等样本量下具有最高的准确度,而我们假设如果有大的训练样本量,SVM将优于其他分类器。此外,应该选择考虑用户的设计方法。虽然SS设计听起来更有希望用于特定主题,但SI方法可以更方便地用于精神或身体有障碍的用户。

英文摘要:

Motor imagery brain computer interface designs are considered difficult due to limitations in subject-specific data collection and calibration, as well as demanding system adaptation requirements. Recently, subject-independent (SI) designs received attention because of their possible applicability to multiple users without prior calibration and rigorous system adaptation. SI designs are challenging and have shown low accuracy in the literature. Two major factors in system performance are the classification algorithm and the quality of available data. This paper presents a comparative study of classification performance for both SS and SI paradigms. Our results show that classification algorithms for SS models display large variance in performance. Therefore, distinct classification algorithms per subject may be required. SI models display lower variance in performance but should only be used if a relatively large sample size is available. For SI models, LDA and CART had the highest accuracy for small and moderate sample size, respectively, whereas we hypothesize that SVM would be superior to the other classifiers if large training sample-size was available. Additionally, one should choose the design approach considering the users. While the SS design sound more promising for a specific subject, an SI approach can be more convenient for mentally or physically challenged users.

机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来,可能存在错误,请以论文正文为准。

↑