TY - JOUR
T1 - A comparison of univariate, vector, bilinear autoregressive, and band power features for brain-computer interfaces
AU - Brunner, Clemens
AU - Billinger, Martin
AU - Vidaurre, Carmen
AU - Neuper, Christa
PY - 2011/11
Y1 - 2011/11
N2 - Selecting suitable feature types is crucial to obtain good overall brain-computer interface performance. Popular feature types include logarithmic band power (logBP), autoregressive (AR) parameters, time-domain parameters, and wavelet-based methods. In this study, we focused on different variants of AR models and compare performance with logBP features. In particular, we analyzed univariate, vector, and bilinear AR models. We used four-class motor imagery data from nine healthy users over two sessions. We used the first session to optimize parameters such as model order and frequency bands. We then evaluated optimized feature extraction methods on the unseen second session. We found that band power yields significantly higher classification accuracies than AR methods. However, we did not update the bias of the classifiers for the second session in our analysis procedure. When updating the bias at the beginning of a new session, we found no significant differences between all methods anymore. Furthermore, our results indicate that subject-specific optimization is not better than globally optimized parameters. The comparison within the AR methods showed that the vector model is significantly better than both univariate and bilinear variants. Finally, adding the prediction error variance to the feature space significantly improved classification results.
AB - Selecting suitable feature types is crucial to obtain good overall brain-computer interface performance. Popular feature types include logarithmic band power (logBP), autoregressive (AR) parameters, time-domain parameters, and wavelet-based methods. In this study, we focused on different variants of AR models and compare performance with logBP features. In particular, we analyzed univariate, vector, and bilinear AR models. We used four-class motor imagery data from nine healthy users over two sessions. We used the first session to optimize parameters such as model order and frequency bands. We then evaluated optimized feature extraction methods on the unseen second session. We found that band power yields significantly higher classification accuracies than AR methods. However, we did not update the bias of the classifiers for the second session in our analysis procedure. When updating the bias at the beginning of a new session, we found no significant differences between all methods anymore. Furthermore, our results indicate that subject-specific optimization is not better than globally optimized parameters. The comparison within the AR methods showed that the vector model is significantly better than both univariate and bilinear variants. Finally, adding the prediction error variance to the feature space significantly improved classification results.
KW - Autoregressive model
KW - Brain-computer interface
KW - Feature extraction
KW - Logarithmic band power
KW - Motor imagery
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/83555174338
U2 - 10.1007/s11517-011-0828-x
DO - 10.1007/s11517-011-0828-x
M3 - Article
C2 - 21947797
AN - SCOPUS:83555174338
SN - 0140-0118
VL - 49
SP - 1337
EP - 1346
JO - Medical and Biological Engineering and Computing
JF - Medical and Biological Engineering and Computing
IS - 11
ER -