TY - JOUR
T1 - Model comparison for automatic characterization and classification of average ERPs using visual oddball paradigm
AU - Merzagora, A. C.
AU - Butti, M.
AU - Polikar, R.
AU - Izzetoglu, M.
AU - Bunce, Scott
AU - Cerutti, S.
AU - Bianchi, A. M.
AU - Onaral, B.
PY - 2009/2
Y1 - 2009/2
N2 - Objective: To determine whether automated classifiers can be used for correctly identifying target categorization responses from averaged event-related potentials (ERPs) along with identifying appropriate features and classification models for computer-assisted investigation of attentional processes. Methods: ERPs were recorded during a target categorization task. Automated classification of average target ERPs versus average non-target ERPs was performed by extracting different combinations of features from the P300 and N200 components, which were used to train six classifiers: Euclidean classifier (EC), Mahalanobis discriminant (MD), quadratic classifier (QC), Fisher linear discriminant (FLD), multi-layer perceptron neural network (MLP) and support vector machine (SVM). Results: The best classification performance (accuracy: 91-92%; sensitivity: 85-86%; specificity: 95-99%) was provided by QC, MLP, SVM on feature vectors extracted from P300 recorded at multiple sites. In general, non-linear and non-parametric classifiers (QC, MLP, SVM) performed better than linear classifiers (EC, MD, FLD). The N200 did not explain variance beyond that of P300 recorded at multiple sites. Conclusions: The results suggest that automatic characterization and classification of average target and non-target ERPs is feasible. Features of P300 recorded at multiple sites used to train non-linear classifiers are recommended for optimal classification performance. Significance: Automatic characterization of target ERPs can provide an objective approach for detecting and diagnosing abnormalities and evaluating interventions for clinical populations, paving the way for future real-time monitoring of attentional processes.
AB - Objective: To determine whether automated classifiers can be used for correctly identifying target categorization responses from averaged event-related potentials (ERPs) along with identifying appropriate features and classification models for computer-assisted investigation of attentional processes. Methods: ERPs were recorded during a target categorization task. Automated classification of average target ERPs versus average non-target ERPs was performed by extracting different combinations of features from the P300 and N200 components, which were used to train six classifiers: Euclidean classifier (EC), Mahalanobis discriminant (MD), quadratic classifier (QC), Fisher linear discriminant (FLD), multi-layer perceptron neural network (MLP) and support vector machine (SVM). Results: The best classification performance (accuracy: 91-92%; sensitivity: 85-86%; specificity: 95-99%) was provided by QC, MLP, SVM on feature vectors extracted from P300 recorded at multiple sites. In general, non-linear and non-parametric classifiers (QC, MLP, SVM) performed better than linear classifiers (EC, MD, FLD). The N200 did not explain variance beyond that of P300 recorded at multiple sites. Conclusions: The results suggest that automatic characterization and classification of average target and non-target ERPs is feasible. Features of P300 recorded at multiple sites used to train non-linear classifiers are recommended for optimal classification performance. Significance: Automatic characterization of target ERPs can provide an objective approach for detecting and diagnosing abnormalities and evaluating interventions for clinical populations, paving the way for future real-time monitoring of attentional processes.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=59149106362&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=59149106362&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.clinph.2008.10.016
DO - 10.1016/j.clinph.2008.10.016
M3 - Article
C2 - 19062338
AN - SCOPUS:59149106362
SN - 1388-2457
VL - 120
SP - 264
EP - 274
JO - Clinical Neurophysiology
JF - Clinical Neurophysiology
IS - 2
ER -