C. Feng, S. Liu, X. Wanyan, Y. Dang, Z. Wang, C. Qian
{"title":"-基于波的敏感脑电图特征探索和情境意识分类","authors":"C. Feng, S. Liu, X. Wanyan, Y. Dang, Z. Wang, C. Qian","doi":"10.1017/aer.2024.36","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n The purpose of this study was to explore the electroencephalogram (EEG) features sensitive to situation awareness (SA) and then classify SA levels. Forty-eight participants were recruited to complete an SA standard test based on the multi-attribute task battery (MATB) II, and the corresponding EEG data and situation awareness global assessment technology (SAGAT) scores were recorded. The population with the top 25% of SAGAT scores was selected as the high-SA level (HSL) group, and the bottom 25% was the low-SA level (LSL) group. The results showed that (1) for the relative power of \n \n \n \n$\\beta$\n\n \n 1 (16–20Hz), \n \n \n \n$\\beta$\n\n \n 2 (20–24Hz) and \n \n \n \n$\\beta$\n\n \n 3 (24–30Hz), repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) in three brain regions (Central Central-Parietal, and Parietal) × three brain lateralities (left, midline, and right) × two SA groups (HSL and LSL) showed a significant main effect for SA groups; post hoc comparisons revealed that compared with LSL, the above features of HSL were higher. (2) for most ratio features associated with \n \n \n \n$\\beta$\n\n \n 1 ∼ \n \n \n \n$\\beta$\n\n \n 3, ANOVA also revealed a main effect for SA groups. (3) EEG features sensitive to SA were selected to classify SA levels with small-sample data based on the general supervised machine learning classifiers. Five-fold cross-validation results showed that among the models with easy interpretability, logistic regression (LR) and decision tree (DT) presented the highest accuracy (both 92%), while among the models with hard interpretability, the accuracy of random forest (RF) was 88.8%, followed by an artificial neural network (ANN) of 84%. The above results suggested that (1) the relative power of \n \n \n \n$\\beta$\n\n \n 1 ∼ \n \n \n \n$\\beta$\n\n \n 3 and their associated ratios were sensitive to changes in SA levels; (2) the general supervised machine learning models all exhibited good accuracy (greater than 75%); and (3) furthermore, LR and DT are recommended by combining the interpretability and accuracy of the models.","PeriodicalId":508971,"journal":{"name":"The Aeronautical Journal","volume":" 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"-wave-based exploration of sensitive EEG features and classification of situation awareness\",\"authors\":\"C. Feng, S. Liu, X. Wanyan, Y. Dang, Z. Wang, C. Qian\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/aer.2024.36\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n The purpose of this study was to explore the electroencephalogram (EEG) features sensitive to situation awareness (SA) and then classify SA levels. Forty-eight participants were recruited to complete an SA standard test based on the multi-attribute task battery (MATB) II, and the corresponding EEG data and situation awareness global assessment technology (SAGAT) scores were recorded. The population with the top 25% of SAGAT scores was selected as the high-SA level (HSL) group, and the bottom 25% was the low-SA level (LSL) group. The results showed that (1) for the relative power of \\n \\n \\n \\n$\\\\beta$\\n\\n \\n 1 (16–20Hz), \\n \\n \\n \\n$\\\\beta$\\n\\n \\n 2 (20–24Hz) and \\n \\n \\n \\n$\\\\beta$\\n\\n \\n 3 (24–30Hz), repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) in three brain regions (Central Central-Parietal, and Parietal) × three brain lateralities (left, midline, and right) × two SA groups (HSL and LSL) showed a significant main effect for SA groups; post hoc comparisons revealed that compared with LSL, the above features of HSL were higher. (2) for most ratio features associated with \\n \\n \\n \\n$\\\\beta$\\n\\n \\n 1 ∼ \\n \\n \\n \\n$\\\\beta$\\n\\n \\n 3, ANOVA also revealed a main effect for SA groups. (3) EEG features sensitive to SA were selected to classify SA levels with small-sample data based on the general supervised machine learning classifiers. Five-fold cross-validation results showed that among the models with easy interpretability, logistic regression (LR) and decision tree (DT) presented the highest accuracy (both 92%), while among the models with hard interpretability, the accuracy of random forest (RF) was 88.8%, followed by an artificial neural network (ANN) of 84%. The above results suggested that (1) the relative power of \\n \\n \\n \\n$\\\\beta$\\n\\n \\n 1 ∼ \\n \\n \\n \\n$\\\\beta$\\n\\n \\n 3 and their associated ratios were sensitive to changes in SA levels; (2) the general supervised machine learning models all exhibited good accuracy (greater than 75%); and (3) furthermore, LR and DT are recommended by combining the interpretability and accuracy of the models.\",\"PeriodicalId\":508971,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Aeronautical Journal\",\"volume\":\" 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Aeronautical Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/aer.2024.36\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Aeronautical Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/aer.2024.36","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
本研究旨在探索对情境意识(SA)敏感的脑电图(EEG)特征,然后对SA水平进行分类。研究人员招募了 48 名参与者,完成了基于多属性任务电池(MATB)II 的 SA 标准测试,并记录了相应的脑电图数据和情境意识全球评估技术(SAGAT)得分。SAGAT 分数排名前 25% 的人群被选为高 SA 水平(HSL)组,排名后 25% 的人群被选为低 SA 水平(LSL)组。结果表明:(1)对于$\beta$1(16-20Hz)、$\beta$2(20-24Hz)和$\beta$3(24-30Hz)的相对功率,在三个脑区(中央-顶叶和顶叶)×三个脑侧线(左侧、中线和右侧)×两个SA组(HSL和LSL)的重复测量方差分析(ANOVA)显示,SA组的主效应显著;事后比较显示,与LSL相比,HSL的上述特征更高。(2)对于与 1 ∼ 3 美元贝塔相关的大多数比率特征,方差分析也显示出 SA 组的主效应。(3) 基于一般监督机器学习分类器,选择对 SA 敏感的脑电特征,用小样本数据对 SA 水平进行分类。五倍交叉验证结果显示,在易解释性模型中,逻辑回归(LR)和决策树(DT)的准确率最高(均为 92%),而在难解释性模型中,随机森林(RF)的准确率为 88.8%,其次是人工神经网络(ANN),准确率为 84%。上述结果表明:(1)$\beta$ 1 ∼ $\beta$ 3 的相对功率及其相关比率对 SA 水平的变化很敏感;(2)一般监督机器学习模型都表现出良好的准确性(大于 75%);(3)此外,综合模型的可解释性和准确性,推荐使用 LR 和 DT。
-wave-based exploration of sensitive EEG features and classification of situation awareness
The purpose of this study was to explore the electroencephalogram (EEG) features sensitive to situation awareness (SA) and then classify SA levels. Forty-eight participants were recruited to complete an SA standard test based on the multi-attribute task battery (MATB) II, and the corresponding EEG data and situation awareness global assessment technology (SAGAT) scores were recorded. The population with the top 25% of SAGAT scores was selected as the high-SA level (HSL) group, and the bottom 25% was the low-SA level (LSL) group. The results showed that (1) for the relative power of
$\beta$
1 (16–20Hz),
$\beta$
2 (20–24Hz) and
$\beta$
3 (24–30Hz), repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) in three brain regions (Central Central-Parietal, and Parietal) × three brain lateralities (left, midline, and right) × two SA groups (HSL and LSL) showed a significant main effect for SA groups; post hoc comparisons revealed that compared with LSL, the above features of HSL were higher. (2) for most ratio features associated with
$\beta$
1 ∼
$\beta$
3, ANOVA also revealed a main effect for SA groups. (3) EEG features sensitive to SA were selected to classify SA levels with small-sample data based on the general supervised machine learning classifiers. Five-fold cross-validation results showed that among the models with easy interpretability, logistic regression (LR) and decision tree (DT) presented the highest accuracy (both 92%), while among the models with hard interpretability, the accuracy of random forest (RF) was 88.8%, followed by an artificial neural network (ANN) of 84%. The above results suggested that (1) the relative power of
$\beta$
1 ∼
$\beta$
3 and their associated ratios were sensitive to changes in SA levels; (2) the general supervised machine learning models all exhibited good accuracy (greater than 75%); and (3) furthermore, LR and DT are recommended by combining the interpretability and accuracy of the models.