↓ Skip to main content

Review of Sparse Representation-Based Classification Methods on EEG Signal Processing for Epilepsy Detection, Brain-Computer Interface and Cognitive Impairment

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
38 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
65 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Review of Sparse Representation-Based Classification Methods on EEG Signal Processing for Epilepsy Detection, Brain-Computer Interface and Cognitive Impairment
Published in
Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, July 2016
DOI 10.3389/fnagi.2016.00172
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dong Wen, Peilei Jia, Qiusheng Lian, Yanhong Zhou, Chengbiao Lu

Abstract

At present, the sparse representation-based classification (SRC) has become an important approach in electroencephalograph (EEG) signal analysis, by which the data is sparsely represented on the basis of a fixed dictionary or learned dictionary and classified based on the reconstruction criteria. SRC methods have been used to analyze the EEG signals of epilepsy, cognitive impairment and brain computer interface (BCI), which made rapid progress including the improvement in computational accuracy, efficiency and robustness. However, these methods have deficiencies in real-time performance, generalization ability and the dependence of labeled sample in the analysis of the EEG signals. This mini review described the advantages and disadvantages of the SRC methods in the EEG signal analysis with the expectation that these methods can provide the better tools for analyzing EEG signals.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Italy 1 2%
Unknown 64 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 28%
Researcher 7 11%
Student > Bachelor 6 9%
Student > Master 6 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 5%
Other 9 14%
Unknown 16 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 24 37%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 6%
Neuroscience 4 6%
Computer Science 3 5%
Psychology 3 5%
Other 8 12%
Unknown 19 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 July 2016.
All research outputs
#15,328,720
of 22,880,230 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
#3,577
of 4,817 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#225,201
of 354,871 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
#65
of 87 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,880,230 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,817 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.0. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 354,871 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 87 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.