S López, A Gross, S Yang, M Golmohammadi, I Obeid, J Picone
{"title":"两个常见的眼睛参考点的分析。","authors":"S López, A Gross, S Yang, M Golmohammadi, I Obeid, J Picone","doi":"10.1109/SPMB.2016.7846854","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Clinical electroencephalographic (EEG) data varies significantly depending on a number of operational conditions (e.g., the type and placement of electrodes, the type of electrical grounding used). This investigation explores the statistical differences present in two different referential montages: Linked Ear (LE) and Averaged Reference (AR). Each of these accounts for approximately 45% of the data in the TUH EEG Corpus. In this study, we explore the impact this variability has on machine learning performance. We compare the statistical properties of features generated using these two montages, and explore the impact of performance on our standard Hidden Markov Model (HMM) based classification system. We show that a system trained on LE data significantly outperforms one trained only on AR data (77.2% vs. 61.4%). We also demonstrate that performance of a system trained on both data sets is somewhat compromised (71.4% vs. 77.2%). A statistical analysis of the data suggests that mean, variance and channel normalization should be considered. However, cepstral mean subtraction failed to produce an improvement in performance, suggesting that the impact of these statistical differences is subtler.</p>","PeriodicalId":91431,"journal":{"name":"... IEEE Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology Symposium (SPMB). IEEE Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology Symposium","volume":"2016 ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1109/SPMB.2016.7846854","citationCount":"26","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"AN ANALYSIS OF TWO COMMON REFERENCE POINTS FOR EEGS.\",\"authors\":\"S López, A Gross, S Yang, M Golmohammadi, I Obeid, J Picone\",\"doi\":\"10.1109/SPMB.2016.7846854\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Clinical electroencephalographic (EEG) data varies significantly depending on a number of operational conditions (e.g., the type and placement of electrodes, the type of electrical grounding used). This investigation explores the statistical differences present in two different referential montages: Linked Ear (LE) and Averaged Reference (AR). Each of these accounts for approximately 45% of the data in the TUH EEG Corpus. In this study, we explore the impact this variability has on machine learning performance. We compare the statistical properties of features generated using these two montages, and explore the impact of performance on our standard Hidden Markov Model (HMM) based classification system. We show that a system trained on LE data significantly outperforms one trained only on AR data (77.2% vs. 61.4%). We also demonstrate that performance of a system trained on both data sets is somewhat compromised (71.4% vs. 77.2%). A statistical analysis of the data suggests that mean, variance and channel normalization should be considered. However, cepstral mean subtraction failed to produce an improvement in performance, suggesting that the impact of these statistical differences is subtler.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":91431,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"... IEEE Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology Symposium (SPMB). IEEE Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology Symposium\",\"volume\":\"2016 \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1109/SPMB.2016.7846854\",\"citationCount\":\"26\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"... IEEE Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology Symposium (SPMB). IEEE Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology Symposium\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1109/SPMB.2016.7846854\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2017/2/9 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"... IEEE Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology Symposium (SPMB). IEEE Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology Symposium","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/SPMB.2016.7846854","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2017/2/9 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 26
摘要
临床脑电图(EEG)数据根据许多操作条件(例如,电极的类型和位置,所使用的电接地类型)而有很大差异。本研究探讨了两种不同参考蒙太奇的统计差异:链接耳(LE)和平均参考(AR)。每一个都占了TUH EEG语料库中大约45%的数据。在本研究中,我们探讨了这种可变性对机器学习性能的影响。我们比较了使用这两种蒙太奇生成的特征的统计特性,并探讨了性能对基于隐马尔可夫模型(HMM)的标准分类系统的影响。我们表明,在LE数据上训练的系统明显优于仅在AR数据上训练的系统(77.2% vs. 61.4%)。我们还证明,在两个数据集上训练的系统的性能有些受损(71.4% vs. 77.2%)。数据的统计分析表明,均值,方差和通道归一化应考虑。然而,倒谱均值减法未能产生性能的改善,这表明这些统计差异的影响是微妙的。
AN ANALYSIS OF TWO COMMON REFERENCE POINTS FOR EEGS.
Clinical electroencephalographic (EEG) data varies significantly depending on a number of operational conditions (e.g., the type and placement of electrodes, the type of electrical grounding used). This investigation explores the statistical differences present in two different referential montages: Linked Ear (LE) and Averaged Reference (AR). Each of these accounts for approximately 45% of the data in the TUH EEG Corpus. In this study, we explore the impact this variability has on machine learning performance. We compare the statistical properties of features generated using these two montages, and explore the impact of performance on our standard Hidden Markov Model (HMM) based classification system. We show that a system trained on LE data significantly outperforms one trained only on AR data (77.2% vs. 61.4%). We also demonstrate that performance of a system trained on both data sets is somewhat compromised (71.4% vs. 77.2%). A statistical analysis of the data suggests that mean, variance and channel normalization should be considered. However, cepstral mean subtraction failed to produce an improvement in performance, suggesting that the impact of these statistical differences is subtler.