↓ Skip to main content

Detection of Movement Related Cortical Potentials from EEG Using Constrained ICA for Brain-Computer Interface Applications

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neuroscience, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Readers on

mendeley
96 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
Detection of Movement Related Cortical Potentials from EEG Using Constrained ICA for Brain-Computer Interface Applications
Published in
Frontiers in Neuroscience, June 2017
DOI 10.3389/fnins.2017.00356
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fatemeh Karimi, Jonathan Kofman, Natalie Mrachacz-Kersting, Dario Farina, Ning Jiang

Abstract

The movement related cortical potential (MRCP), a slow cortical potential from the scalp electroencephalogram (EEG), has been used in real-time brain-computer-interface (BCI) systems designed for neurorehabilitation. Detecting MPCPs in real time with high accuracy and low latency is essential in these applications. In this study, we propose a new MRCP detection method based on constrained independent component analysis (cICA). The method was tested for MRCP detection during executed and imagined ankle dorsiflexion of 24 healthy participants, and compared with four commonly used spatial filters for MRCP detection in an offline experiment. The effect of cICA and the compared spatial filters on the morphology of the extracted MRCP was evaluated by two indices quantifying the signal-to-noise ratio and variability of the extracted MRCP. The performance of the filters for detection was then directly compared for accuracy and latency. The latency obtained with cICA (-34 ± 29 ms motor execution (ME) and 28 ± 16 ms for motor imagery (MI) dataset) was significantly smaller than with all other spatial filters. Moreover, cICA resulted in greater true positive rates (87.11 ± 11.73 for ME and 86.66 ± 6.96 for MI dataset) and lower false positive rates (20.69 ± 13.68 for ME and 19.31 ± 12.60 for MI dataset) compared to the other methods. These results confirm the superiority of cICA in MRCP detection with respect to previously proposed EEG filtering approaches.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 96 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 96 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 22%
Student > Master 13 14%
Student > Bachelor 10 10%
Researcher 10 10%
Other 7 7%
Other 17 18%
Unknown 18 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 34 35%
Neuroscience 13 14%
Computer Science 6 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Other 10 10%
Unknown 25 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 16 July 2017.
All research outputs
#14,541,990
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#5,783
of 11,542 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#159,725
of 327,487 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#95
of 193 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,542 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.0. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% 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 327,487 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 193 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.