1
|
Huggins JE, Krusienski D, Vansteensel MJ, Valeriani D, Thelen A, Stavisky S, Norton JJS, Nijholt A, Müller-Putz G, Kosmyna N, Korczowski L, Kapeller C, Herff C, Halder S, Guger C, Grosse-Wentrup M, Gaunt R, Dusang AN, Clisson P, Chavarriaga R, Anderson CW, Allison BZ, Aksenova T, Aarnoutse E. Workshops of the Eighth International Brain-Computer Interface Meeting: BCIs: The Next Frontier. BRAIN-COMPUTER INTERFACES 2022; 9:69-101. [PMID: 36908334 PMCID: PMC9997957 DOI: 10.1080/2326263x.2021.2009654] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/12/2021] [Accepted: 11/15/2021] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
Abstract
The Eighth International Brain-Computer Interface (BCI) Meeting was held June 7-9th, 2021 in a virtual format. The conference continued the BCI Meeting series' interactive nature with 21 workshops covering topics in BCI (also called brain-machine interface) research. As in the past, workshops covered the breadth of topics in BCI. Some workshops provided detailed examinations of specific methods, hardware, or processes. Others focused on specific BCI applications or user groups. Several workshops continued consensus building efforts designed to create BCI standards and increase the ease of comparisons between studies and the potential for meta-analysis and large multi-site clinical trials. Ethical and translational considerations were both the primary topic for some workshops or an important secondary consideration for others. The range of BCI applications continues to expand, with more workshops focusing on approaches that can extend beyond the needs of those with physical impairments. This paper summarizes each workshop, provides background information and references for further study, presents an overview of the discussion topics, and describes the conclusion, challenges, or initiatives that resulted from the interactions and discussion at the workshop.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jane E Huggins
- Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Department of Biomedical Engineering, Neuroscience Graduate Program, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States 325 East Eisenhower, Room 3017; Ann Arbor, Michigan 48108-5744, 734-936-7177
| | - Dean Krusienski
- Department of Biomedical Engineering, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA 23219
| | - Mariska J Vansteensel
- UMC Utrecht Brain Center, Dept of Neurosurgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | | | - Antonia Thelen
- eemagine Medical Imaging Solutions GmbH, Berlin, Germany
| | | | - James J S Norton
- National Center for Adaptive Neurotechnologies, US Department of Veterans Affairs, 113 Holland Ave, Albany, NY 12208
| | - Anton Nijholt
- Faculty EEMCS, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands
| | - Gernot Müller-Putz
- Institute of Neural Engineering, GrazBCI Lab, Graz University of Technology, Stremayrgasse 16/4, 8010 Graz, Austria
| | - Nataliya Kosmyna
- Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Media Lab, E14-548, Cambridge, MA 02139, Unites States
| | | | | | - Christian Herff
- School of Mental Health and Neuroscience, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | | | - Christoph Guger
- g.tec medical engineering GmbH/Guger Technologies OG, Austria, Sierningstrasse 14, 4521 Schiedlberg, Austria, +43725122240-0
| | - Moritz Grosse-Wentrup
- Research Group Neuroinformatics, Faculty of Computer Science, Vienna Cognitive Science Hub, Data Science @ Uni Vienna University of Vienna
| | - Robert Gaunt
- Rehab Neural Engineering Labs, Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Center for the Neural Basis of Cognition, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 3520 5th Ave, Suite 300, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, 412-383-1426
| | - Aliceson Nicole Dusang
- Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, School of Engineering, Brown University, Carney Institute for Brain Science, Brown University, Providence, RI
- Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Center for Neurorestoration and Neurotechnology, Rehabilitation R&D Service, Providence, RI
- Center for Neurotechnology and Neurorecovery, Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA
| | | | - Ricardo Chavarriaga
- IEEE Standards Association Industry Connections group on neurotechnologies for brain-machine interface, Center for Artificial Intelligence, School of Engineering, ZHAW-Zurich University of Applied Sciences, Switzerland, Switzerland
| | - Charles W Anderson
- Department of Computer Science, Molecular, Cellular and Integrative Neurosience Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523
| | - Brendan Z Allison
- Dept. of Cognitive Science, Mail Code 0515, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, United States, 619-534-9754
| | - Tetiana Aksenova
- University Grenoble Alpes, CEA, LETI, Clinatec, Grenoble 38000, France
| | - Erik Aarnoutse
- UMC Utrecht Brain Center, Department of Neurology & Neurosurgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX Utrecht, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Kamrud A, Borghetti B, Schubert Kabban C. The Effects of Individual Differences, Non-Stationarity, and the Importance of Data Partitioning Decisions for Training and Testing of EEG Cross-Participant Models. SENSORS (BASEL, SWITZERLAND) 2021; 21:3225. [PMID: 34066595 PMCID: PMC8125354 DOI: 10.3390/s21093225] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/06/2021] [Revised: 04/28/2021] [Accepted: 05/02/2021] [Indexed: 12/15/2022]
Abstract
EEG-based deep learning models have trended toward models that are designed to perform classification on any individual (cross-participant models). However, because EEG varies across participants due to non-stationarity and individual differences, certain guidelines must be followed for partitioning data into training, validation, and testing sets, in order for cross-participant models to avoid overestimation of model accuracy. Despite this necessity, the majority of EEG-based cross-participant models have not adopted such guidelines. Furthermore, some data repositories may unwittingly contribute to the problem by providing partitioned test and non-test datasets for reasons such as competition support. In this study, we demonstrate how improper dataset partitioning and the resulting improper training, validation, and testing of a cross-participant model leads to overestimated model accuracy. We demonstrate this mathematically, and empirically, using five publicly available datasets. To build the cross-participant models for these datasets, we replicate published results and demonstrate how the model accuracies are significantly reduced when proper EEG cross-participant model guidelines are followed. Our empirical results show that by not following these guidelines, error rates of cross-participant models can be underestimated between 35% and 3900%. This misrepresentation of model performance for the general population potentially slows scientific progress toward truly high-performing classification models.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alexander Kamrud
- Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Air Force Institute of Technology, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433, USA; (B.B.); (C.S.K.)
| | | | | |
Collapse
|