↓ Skip to main content

Gaussian Process Regression for Predictive But Interpretable Machine Learning Models: An Example of Predicting Mental Workload across Tasks

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

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
51 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
116 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
Gaussian Process Regression for Predictive But Interpretable Machine Learning Models: An Example of Predicting Mental Workload across Tasks
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2017
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2016.00647
Pubmed ID
Authors

Matthew S. Caywood, Daniel M. Roberts, Jeffrey B. Colombe, Hal S. Greenwald, Monica Z. Weiland

Abstract

There is increasing interest in real-time brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) for the passive monitoring of human cognitive state, including cognitive workload. Too often, however, effective BCIs based on machine learning techniques may function as "black boxes" that are difficult to analyze or interpret. In an effort toward more interpretable BCIs, we studied a family of N-back working memory tasks using a machine learning model, Gaussian Process Regression (GPR), which was both powerful and amenable to analysis. Participants performed the N-back task with three stimulus variants, auditory-verbal, visual-spatial, and visual-numeric, each at three working memory loads. GPR models were trained and tested on EEG data from all three task variants combined, in an effort to identify a model that could be predictive of mental workload demand regardless of stimulus modality. To provide a comparison for GPR performance, a model was additionally trained using multiple linear regression (MLR). The GPR model was effective when trained on individual participant EEG data, resulting in an average standardized mean squared error (sMSE) between true and predicted N-back levels of 0.44. In comparison, the MLR model using the same data resulted in an average sMSE of 0.55. We additionally demonstrate how GPR can be used to identify which EEG features are relevant for prediction of cognitive workload in an individual participant. A fraction of EEG features accounted for the majority of the model's predictive power; using only the top 25% of features performed nearly as well as using 100% of features. Subsets of features identified by linear models (ANOVA) were not as efficient as subsets identified by GPR. This raises the possibility of BCIs that require fewer model features while capturing all of the information needed to achieve high predictive accuracy.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 116 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 116 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 23%
Student > Master 23 20%
Researcher 13 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 8%
Student > Bachelor 9 8%
Other 14 12%
Unknown 21 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 24 21%
Psychology 18 16%
Computer Science 16 14%
Neuroscience 7 6%
Design 3 3%
Other 15 13%
Unknown 33 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 11 April 2017.
All research outputs
#17,667,907
of 22,681,577 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#5,695
of 7,118 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#293,332
of 420,644 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#147
of 180 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,681,577 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,118 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% 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 420,644 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 180 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.