PLoS ONE (Jan 2022)

Riemannian classification of single-trial surface EEG and sources during checkerboard and navigational images in humans.

  • Cédric Simar,
  • Robin Petit,
  • Nichita Bozga,
  • Axelle Leroy,
  • Ana-Maria Cebolla,
  • Mathieu Petieau,
  • Gianluca Bontempi,
  • Guy Cheron

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0262417
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 17, no. 1
p. e0262417

Abstract

Read online

ObjectiveDifferent visual stimuli are classically used for triggering visual evoked potentials comprising well-defined components linked to the content of the displayed image. These evoked components result from the average of ongoing EEG signals in which additive and oscillatory mechanisms contribute to the component morphology. The evoked related potentials often resulted from a mixed situation (power variation and phase-locking) making basic and clinical interpretations difficult. Besides, the grand average methodology produced artificial constructs that do not reflect individual peculiarities. This motivated new approaches based on single-trial analysis as recently used in the brain-computer interface field.ApproachWe hypothesize that EEG signals may include specific information about the visual features of the displayed image and that such distinctive traits can be identified by state-of-the-art classification algorithms based on Riemannian geometry. The same classification algorithms are also applied to the dipole sources estimated by sLORETA.Main results and significanceWe show that our classification pipeline can effectively discriminate between the display of different visual items (Checkerboard versus 3D navigational image) in single EEG trials throughout multiple subjects. The present methodology reaches a single-trial classification accuracy of about 84% and 93% for inter-subject and intra-subject classification respectively using surface EEG. Interestingly, we note that the classification algorithms trained on sLORETA sources estimation fail to generalize among multiple subjects (63%), which may be due to either the average head model used by sLORETA or the subsequent spatial filtering failing to extract discriminative information, but reach an intra-subject classification accuracy of 82%.