A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Optimal Versus Approximate Channel Selection Methods for EEG Decoding With Application to Topology-Constrained Neuro-Sensor Networks. | LitMetric

Channel selection or electrode placement for neural decoding is a commonly encountered problem in electroencephalography (EEG). Since evaluating all possible channel combinations is usually infeasible, one usually has to settle for heuristic methods or convex approximations without optimality guarantees. To date, it remains unclear how large the gap is between the selection made by these approximate methods and the truly optimal selection. The goal of this paper is to quantify this optimality gap for several state-of-the-art channel selection methods in the context of least-squares based neural decoding. To this end, we reformulate the channel selection problem as a mixed-integer quadratic program (MIQP), which allows the use of efficient MIQP solvers to find the optimal channel combination in a feasible computation time for up to 100 candidate channels. As this reveals the exact solution to the combinatorial problem, it allows to quantify the performance losses when using state-of-the-art sub-optimal (yet faster) channel selection methods. In a context of auditory attention decoding, we find that a greedy channel selection based on the utility metric does not show a significant optimality gap compared to optimal channel selection, whereas other state-of-the-art greedy or l -norm penalized methods do show a significant loss in performance. Furthermore, we demonstrate that the MIQP formulation also provides a natural way to incorporate topology constraints in the selection, e.g., for electrode placement in neuro-sensor networks with galvanic separation constraints. Furthermore, a combination of this utility-based greedy selection with an MIQP solver allows to perform a topology constrained electrode placement, even in large scale problems with more than 100 candidate positions.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TNSRE.2020.3035499DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

channel selection
28
selection methods
12
electrode placement
12
selection
11
channel
9
neuro-sensor networks
8
selection electrode
8
neural decoding
8
optimality gap
8
methods context
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!