Novel joint algorithm based on EEG in complex scenarios

Figures & data

Figure 1. Novel joint method flow chart.

Table 1. Distribution table of the EEG samples according to digit stimulation.

Digit stimulation	Number of EEG samples
0	6,305
1	6,740
2	6,535
3	6,605
4	6,620
5	6,460
6	6,425
7	6,470
8	6,590
9	6,500
Total	65,250

Table 2. Time consumption of the three joint methods (second).

Method	Exp. 1	Exp. 2	Exp. 3	Exp. 4	Exp. 5	AVG
FFT joint method	164.94	161.80	162.84	166.63	163.21	163.88
SVM joint method	30.85	32.82	29.42	32.50	31.56	31.43
New joint method	39.81	42.53	40.28	41.98	39.99	40.92

Table 3. Accuracy of the three joint methods.

Digit	FFT joint method					SVM joint method					New joint method
	Exp. 1	Exp. 2	Exp. 3	Exp. 4	Exp. 5	Exp. 1	Exp. 2	Exp. 3	Exp. 4	Exp. 5	Exp. 1	Exp. 2	Exp. 3	Exp. 4	Exp. 5
0	0.77	0.79	0.82	0.77	0.80	0.67	0.72	0.71	0.68	0.69	0.85	0.84	0.88	0.80	0.82
1	0.78	0.77	0.82	0.76	0.81	0.70	0.69	0.69	0.68	0.70	0.87	0.86	0.85	0.81	0.83
2	0.83	0.78	0.76	0.81	0.78	0.68	0.66	0.70	0.68	0.71	0.83	0.83	0.87	0.84	0.85
3	0.84	0.77	0.79	0.79	0.78	0.69	0.71	0.72	0.69	0.72	0.84	0.82	0.86	0.83	0.84
4	0.77	0.78	0.79	0.76	0.83	0.67	0.67	0.74	0.67	0.67	0.88	0.85	0.90	0.83	0.84
5	0.80	0.79	0.84	0.77	0.82	0.69	0.75	0.68	0.69	0.72	0.86	0.84	0.84	0.83	0.87
6	0.79	0.80	0.82	0.76	0.80	0.71	0.72	0.72	0.65	0.71	0.84	0.85	0.89	0.83	0.82
7	0.78	0.76	0.83	0.78	0.77	0.66	0.69	0.74	0.67	0.73	0.84	0.84	0.84	0.84	0.83
8	0.83	0.75	0.82	0.79	0.75	0.71	0.67	0.67	0.69	0.67	0.85	0.83	0.83	0.85	0.84
9	0.81	0.80	0.81	0.81	0.76	0.72	0.72	0.73	0.70	0.68	0.84	0.84	0.84	0.84	0.86
AVG	0.80	0.78	0.81	0.78	0.79	0.69	0.70	0.71	0.68	0.70	0.85	0.84	0.86	0.83	0.84

In the five cross-validation experiments, the average accuracy of the FFT joint method, SVM joint method, and new joint method was 0.79, 0.70, and 0.84, respectively.

Table 4. Precision rate of the three joint methods.

Digit	FFT joint method					SVM joint method					New joint method
	Exp. 1	Exp. 2	Exp. 3	Exp. 4	Exp. 5	Exp. 1	Exp. 2	Exp. 3	Exp. 4	Exp. 5	Exp. 1	Exp. 2	Exp. 3	Exp. 4	Exp. 5
0	0.71	0.72	0.71	0.69	0.72	0.77	0.77	0.76	0.75	0.76	0.89	0.88	0.88	0.89	0.88
1	0.71	0.71	0.73	0.71	0.70	0.76	0.76	0.76	0.76	0.76	0.88	0.89	0.90	0.89	0.90
2	0.72	0.70	0.71	0.71	0.72	0.76	0.76	0.76	0.75	0.77	0.89	0.89	0.89	0.89	0.89
3	0.70	0.72	0.72	0.70	0.71	0.76	0.75	0.75	0.76	0.78	0.89	0.89	0.89	0.89	0.89
4	0.72	0.73	0.73	0.72	0.73	0.76	0.75	0.76	0.75	0.74	0.89	0.89	0.89	0.89	0.89
5	0.72	0.71	0.72	0.73	0.73	0.75	0.76	0.77	0.76	0.76	0.89	0.89	0.89	0.89	0.89
6	0.71	0.71	0.71	0.70	0.72	0.76	0.76	0.76	0.76	0.75	0.89	0.89	0.89	0.89	0.89
7	0.71	0.72	0.72	0.72	0.72	0.77	0.76	0.76	0.78	0.77	0.89	0.89	0.89	0.89	0.89
8	0.72	0.71	0.72	0.72	0.72	0.76	0.75	0.76	0.77	0.76	0.89	0.88	0.89	0.90	0.90
9	0.71	0.71	0.71	0.72	0.71	0.76	0.75	0.76	0.77	0.77	0.89	0.88	0.90	0.89	0.89
AVG	0.71	0.71	0.72	0.71	0.72	0.76	0.76	0.76	0.76	0.76	0.89	0.89	0.89	0.89	0.89

In the five cross-validation experiments, the average precision of the FFT joint method, SVM joint method, and new joint method was 0.71, 0.76, and 0.89, respectively.

Table 5. Recall rate of the three joint methods.

Digit	FFT joint method					SVM joint method					New joint method
	Exp. 1	Exp. 2	Exp. 3	Exp. 4	Exp. 5	Exp. 1	Exp. 2	Exp. 3	Exp. 4	Exp. 5	Exp. 1	Exp. 2	Exp. 3	Exp. 4	Exp. 5
0	0.68	0.69	0.68	0.67	0.68	0.72	0.72	0.72	0.71	0.73	0.86	0.85	0.85	0.85	0.85
1	0.66	0.67	0.68	0.67	0.66	0.65	0.67	0.71	0.67	0.69	0.84	0.85	0.86	0.85	0.86
2	0.68	0.67	0.68	0.67	0.68	0.69	0.70	0.70	0.71	0.71	0.85	0.85	0.85	0.85	0.85
3	0.67	0.68	0.68	0.67	0.67	0.72	0.73	0.73	0.70	0.72	0.85	0.82	0.85	0.85	0.84
4	0.68	0.69	0.69	0.68	0.69	0.73	0.69	0.68	0.70	0.71	0.85	0.86	0.84	0.85	0.86
5	0.68	0.68	0.68	0.68	0.69	0.71	0.73	0.73	0.72	0.75	0.85	0.86	0.85	0.85	0.85
6	0.67	0.67	0.66	0.66	0.67	0.71	0.72	0.70	0.72	0.71	0.85	0.85	0.84	0.85	0.85
7	0.67	0.68	0.68	0.68	0.68	0.70	0.71	0.70	0.68	0.68	0.85	0.85	0.84	0.84	0.85
8	0.67	0.67	0.68	0.68	0.67	0.72	0.72	0.72	0.72	0.70	0.85	0.84	0.85	0.85	0.86
9	0.67	0.67	0.67	0.68	0.67	0.74	0.73	0.71	0.73	0.75	0.86	0.86	0.86	0.86	0.86
AVG	0.67	0.68	0.68	0.68	0.68	0.71	0.71	0.71	0.71	0.71	0.85	0.85	0.85	0.85	0.85

In the five cross-validation experiments, the average recall of the FFT joint method, SVM joint method, and new joint method was 0.68, 0.71, and 0.85, respectively.

Table 6. F1 score of the three joint methods.

Digit	FFT joint method					SVM joint method					New joint method
	Exp. 1	Exp. 2	Exp. 3	Exp. 4	Exp. 5	Exp. 1	Exp. 2	Exp. 3	Exp. 4	Exp. 5	Exp. 1	Exp. 2	Exp. 3	Exp. 4	Exp. 5
0	0.67	0.67	0.66	0.66	0.67	0.71	0.70	0.71	0.70	0.72	0.85	0.85	0.85	0.85	0.84
1	0.65	0.65	0.67	0.65	0.65	0.62	0.64	0.69	0.64	0.68	0.83	0.85	0.85	0.85	0.86
2	0.67	0.66	0.66	0.66	0.66	0.66	0.69	0.69	0.70	0.70	0.85	0.85	0.85	0.85	0.85
3	0.65	0.66	0.67	0.66	0.66	0.71	0.72	0.72	0.68	0.71	0.85	0.85	0.85	0.85	0.84
4	0.67	0.67	0.67	0.67	0.68	0.72	0.68	0.66	0.68	0.71	0.85	0.85	0.85	0.85	0.85
5	0.67	0.67	0.67	0.67	0.68	0.70	0.72	0.72	0.70	0.75	0.85	0.85	0.85	0.85	0.85
6	0.65	0.65	0.65	0.64	0.66	0.69	0.71	0.69	0.71	0.69	0.85	0.85	0.85	0.85	0.85
7	0.66	0.67	0.67	0.67	0.66	0.68	0.69	0.68	0.65	0.66	0.84	0.85	0.84	0.84	0.85
8	0.66	0.65	0.67	0.68	0.66	0.70	0.71	0.72	0.71	0.69	0.85	0.84	0.84	0.86	0.86
9	0.66	0.65	0.66	0.66	0.66	0.74	0.73	0.70	0.73	0.75	0.85	0.84	0.86	0.86	0.86
AVG	0.66	0.66	0.67	0.66	0.65	0.69	0.70	0.70	0.69	0.71	0.85	0.85	0.85	0.85	0.85

In the five cross-validation experiments, the average F1 score of the FFT joint method, SVM joint method, and new joint method was 0.66, 0.70, and 0.85, respectively.

Table 7. Kappa coefficient of the three joint methods.

Digit	FFT joint method					SVM joint method				New joint method
	Exp. 1	Exp. 2	Exp. 3	Exp. 4	Exp. 5	Exp. 1	Exp. 2	Exp. 3	Exp. 4	Exp. 5	Exp. 1	Exp. 2	Exp. 3	Exp. 4	Exp. 5
0	0.37	0.37	0.35	0.33	0.37	0.45	0.44	0.44	0.43	0.46	0.71	0.71	0.71	0.70	0.69
1	0.33	0.34	0.36	0.34	0.33	0.31	0.34	0.42	0.34	0.40	0.68	0.71	0.73	0.70	0.72
2	0.37	0.34	0.36	0.35	0.36	0.38	0.41	0.41	0.43	0.43	0.70	0.71	0.71	0.71	0.70
3	0.33	0.35	0.36	0.34	0.35	0.44	0.46	0.45	0.40	0.44	0.70	0.70	0.70	0.70	0.69
4	0.37	0.38	0.38	0.36	0.38	0.46	0.39	0.37	0.40	0.43	0.71	0.71	0.68	0.71	0.72
5	0.36	0.36	0.37	0.37	0.38	0.42	0.46	0.46	0.44	0.50	0.70	0.71	0.71	0.70	0.70
6	0.34	0.36	0.33	0.32	0.35	0.42	0.44	0.41	0.45	0.41	0.70	0.71	0.69	0.70	0.71
7	0.35	0.37	0.36	0.37	0.36	0.41	0.41	0.40	0.37	0.38	0.70	0.71	0.70	0.69	0.71
8	0.35	0.34	0.36	0.38	0.35	0.44	0.44	0.45	0.45	0.41	0.71	0.68	0.70	0.72	0.73
9	0.35	0.33	0.35	0.36	0.34	0.48	0.47	0.43	0.47	0.50	0.71	0.70	0.73	0.72	0.72
AVG	0.35	0.36	0.36	0.35	0.36	0.42	0.43	0.42	0.42	0.44	0.70	0.70	0.71	0.70	0.71

Note: In the five cross-validation experiments, the average kappa coefficient of the FFT joint method, SVM joint method, and new joint method was 0.36, 0.43, and 0.70, respectively.

Table 8. Comprehensive efficiency of the three joint methods.

Method	Exp. 1	Exp. 2	Exp. 3	Exp. 4	Exp. 5	AVG
FFT joint method	0.080	0.078	0.081	0.078	0.079	0.079
SVM joint method	0.759	0.770	0.781	0.748	0.792	0.770
New joint method	0.884	0.857	0.877	0.845	0.863	0.865