↓ Skip to main content

Using the General Linear Model to Improve Performance in fNIRS Single Trial Analysis and Classification: A Perspective

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, February 2020
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
patent
2 patents

Readers on

mendeley
147 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
Using the General Linear Model to Improve Performance in fNIRS Single Trial Analysis and Classification: A Perspective
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, February 2020
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2020.00030
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alexander von Lühmann, Antonio Ortega-Martinez, David A. Boas, Meryem Ayşe Yücel

Abstract

Within a decade, single trial analysis of functional Near Infrared Spectroscopy (fNIRS) signals has gained significant momentum, and fNIRS joined the set of modalities frequently used for active and passive Brain Computer Interfaces (BCI). A great variety of methods for feature extraction and classification have been explored using state-of-the-art Machine Learning methods. In contrast, signal preprocessing and cleaning pipelines for fNIRS often follow simple recipes and so far rarely incorporate the available state-of-the-art in adjacent fields. In neuroscience, where fMRI and fNIRS are established neuroimaging tools, evoked hemodynamic brain activity is typically estimated across multiple trials using a General Linear Model (GLM). With the help of the GLM, subject, channel, and task specific evoked hemodynamic responses are estimated, and the evoked brain activity is more robustly separated from systemic physiological interference using independent measures of nuisance regressors, such as short-separation fNIRS measurements. When correctly applied in single trial analysis, e.g., in BCI, this approach can significantly enhance contrast to noise ratio of the brain signal, improve feature separability and ultimately lead to better classification accuracy. In this manuscript, we provide a brief introduction into the GLM and show how to incorporate it into a typical BCI preprocessing pipeline and cross-validation. Using a resting state fNIRS data set augmented with synthetic hemodynamic responses that provide ground truth brain activity, we compare the quality of commonly used fNIRS features for BCI that are extracted from (1) conventionally preprocessed signals, and (2) signals preprocessed with the GLM and physiological nuisance regressors. We show that the GLM-based approach can provide better single trial estimates of brain activity as well as a new feature type, i.e., the weight of the individual and channel-specific hemodynamic response function (HRF) regressor. The improved estimates yield features with higher separability, that significantly enhance accuracy in a binary classification task when compared to conventional preprocessing-on average +7.4% across subjects and feature types. We propose to adapt this well-established approach from neuroscience to the domain of single-trial analysis and preprocessing wherever the classification of evoked brain activity is of concern, for instance in BCI.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

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 147 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 147 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 37 25%
Student > Master 19 13%
Researcher 16 11%
Student > Bachelor 13 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 5%
Other 6 4%
Unknown 48 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 30 20%
Neuroscience 26 18%
Computer Science 8 5%
Psychology 7 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 4%
Other 15 10%
Unknown 55 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 26 January 2023.
All research outputs
#4,565,518
of 23,263,851 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#2,034
of 7,254 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#94,264
of 360,875 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#26
of 133 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,263,851 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,254 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its peers.
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 360,875 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 133 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.