↓ Skip to main content

Spectral Transfer Learning Using Information Geometry for a User-Independent Brain-Computer Interface

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

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
87 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
Spectral Transfer Learning Using Information Geometry for a User-Independent Brain-Computer Interface
Published in
Frontiers in Neuroscience, September 2016
DOI 10.3389/fnins.2016.00430
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nicholas R. Waytowich, Vernon J. Lawhern, Addison W. Bohannon, Kenneth R. Ball, Brent J. Lance

Abstract

Recent advances in signal processing and machine learning techniques have enabled the application of Brain-Computer Interface (BCI) technologies to fields such as medicine, industry, and recreation; however, BCIs still suffer from the requirement of frequent calibration sessions due to the intra- and inter-individual variability of brain-signals, which makes calibration suppression through transfer learning an area of increasing interest for the development of practical BCI systems. In this paper, we present an unsupervised transfer method (spectral transfer using information geometry, STIG), which ranks and combines unlabeled predictions from an ensemble of information geometry classifiers built on data from individual training subjects. The STIG method is validated in both off-line and real-time feedback analysis during a rapid serial visual presentation task (RSVP). For detection of single-trial, event-related potentials (ERPs), the proposed method can significantly outperform existing calibration-free techniques as well as outperform traditional within-subject calibration techniques when limited data is available. This method demonstrates that unsupervised transfer learning for single-trial detection in ERP-based BCIs can be achieved without the requirement of costly training data, representing a step-forward in the overall goal of achieving a practical user-independent BCI system.

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 87 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 2%
Unknown 85 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 24%
Student > Master 13 15%
Researcher 6 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 3%
Other 15 17%
Unknown 25 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 22 25%
Computer Science 17 20%
Neuroscience 7 8%
Mathematics 5 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Other 6 7%
Unknown 28 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 22 September 2016.
All research outputs
#19,945,185
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#8,670
of 11,541 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#241,220
of 328,656 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#87
of 131 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,541 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.9. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% 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 328,656 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 131 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.