Comparative Study of Different Machine Learning Algorithms to Classify EEG Commands
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.58564/IJSER.3.2.2024.176Keywords:
Machine Learning, Electroencephalogram, Decision Tree, Logistic Regression, Random Forest, Gradient BoostingAbstract
Since electroencephalograms are non-invasive, inexpensive, and have high resolution, they are frequently used in diagnostic evaluations of a wide range of brain signals. However, manual EEG signal analysis can be exhausting and time-consuming. It takes a long time for physicians to become specialists in this field, and experts have low inter-rater agreement (IRA). To aid the last diagnosis and lessen the load, numerous Computer Aided Diagnostic (CAD) studies have looked into automating EEG interpretation. EEG signal classification provides an extra creative way of detecting emotions. Generic emotion recognition algorithms may face limitations and obstacles when restricting facial expression triggers and emotion masking. This study involves categorizing EEG data and evaluating the outcomes of several machine learning algorithms, such as Support Vector Machine (SVM), K-nearest Neighbor (KNN), Random Forest, Gradient Boosting, Logistic Regression, and Decision Trees. Grid search was also employed to reduce execution time for each of the machine learning models that were tested on the Spark cluster using hyperparameter tuning. This study used the Emotion Dataset, a multimodal dataset for classifying human affective states. Gradient Boosting outperformed other algorithms in terms of precision, recall, and F-Score, achieving 99.54%, 99.51%, and 99.52%, respectively, with an accuracy of 99.53%. According to the suggested model, several classification techniques are needed to differentiate between different emotional states, and gradient boosting is the most effective machine-learning technique. Current supervised classification techniques, including GBMs, are used to simulate a variety of typical machine-learning problems with high reliability. The recommended approach produced better accuracy and faster training speeds.
References
Daros A, Zakzanis K, Ruocco A. Facial emotion recognition in borderline personality disorder. Psychol Med.2013; 43:1953–63.
Schaaff K, Schultz T. Towards emotion recognition from electroencephalographic signals. In: 2009 3rd international conference on affective computing and intelligent interaction and workshops. New York: IEEE; 2009. p. 1–6.
Sudalaimani, C. and Sivakumaran, N. and Elizabeth, Thomas and Rominus, Valsalam, ” Automated detection of the preseizure state in EEG signal using neural networks” Biocybernetics and Biomedical Engineering, vol.39, 2018, pp.160-175. Doi: 10.1016/j.bbe.2018.11.007.
A. A. a. M.-S. M. M. S. N. Abdulkader,”Brain computer interfacing: Applications and challenges” Egyptian Informatics Journal, vol.16, no.2, 2015, pp. 213-230.
F. Lotte, M. Congedo, A. Lcuyer, F. Lamarche and B. Arnaldi,” A review of classification algorithms for EEG-based brain computer interfaces,” Journal of Neural Engineering, vol. 4, 2007, p. 24.
S.R. Sreeja, et al., Motor imagery EEG signal processing and classification using machine learning approach, in: Proceedings - 2017 International Conference on New Trends in Computing Sciences, ICTCS 2017 2018-Janua, 2017, pp. 61–66, https://doi.org/10.1109/ICTCS.2017.15.
A. Bonci, S. Fiori, H. Higashi, T. Tanaka, F. Verdini, Electronics An Introductory Tutorial on Brain-Computer Interfaces and Their Applications, 2021, https://doi. org/10.3390/electronics.
R. Portillo-Lara, B. Tahirbegi, C.A.R. Chapman, J.A. Goding, R.A. Green, Mind the gap: state-of-the-art technologies and applications for EEG-based brain-computer interfaces, APL Bioeng. 5 (3) (2021), https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0047237.
Vo, H. T. T., Dang, L. N. T., Nguyen, V. T. N., & Huynh, V. T. (2019). A survey of machine learning algorithms in EEG. Proceedings - 2019 6th NAFOSTED Conference on Information and Computer Science, NICS 2019, 500–505. https://doi.org/10.1109/NICS48868.2019.9023884.
Doma, V., & Pirouz, M. (2020). A comparative analysis of machine learning methods for emotion recognition using EEG and peripheral physiological signals. Journal of Big Data, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40537-020-00289-7.
Bhumireddy Venkata, G., Surendra, A., Anala, M., Surendra, V. A., & Hu, Y. (2022). Comparison of Machine Learning algorithms on detecting the confusion of students while watching MOOCs. February. www.bth.se
Paquin, F., Rivnay, J., Salleo, A., Stingelin, N., & Silva, C. (2015). Multi-phase semicrystalline microstructures drive exciton dissociation in neat plastic semiconductors. J. Mater. Chem. C, 3(1), 10715–10722. https://doi.org/10.1039/b000000x
Pawan, & Dhiman, R. (2023). Machine learning techniques for electroencephalogram based brain-computer interface: A systematic literature review. Measurement: Sensors, 28(June), 100823. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measen.2023.100823.
K. Jalali and F. Noorbehbahani, “An Automatic Method for Cheating Detection in Online Exams by Processing the Students Webcam Images,” 3rd Conf. Electr. Comput. Eng. Technol. (E-Tech 2017), Tehran, Iran, no. March, pp. 1–6, 2017.
A. K. S. Sabonchi and A. K. Görür, “Plagiarism detection in learning management system,” in ICIT 2017 - 8th International Conference on Information Technology, Proceedings, 2017, pp. 495–500, 2017.
L. Umek, D. Keržič, N. Tomaževič, and A. Aristovnik, “the Impact of Moodle Quizzes on Student Performance: the Case of a Statistics Course,” in Proc. 8th Internat. Conf. Information, Communication Technologies in Education, Chania, Crete, Greece, 2018, pp. 69–76, 2018.
I. Waspada, N. Bahtiar, and A. Wibowo, “Clustering student behavior based on quiz activities on moodle LMS to discover the relation with a final exam score,” in Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 2019, vol. 1217, no. 1, p. 12118, 2019.
A. Shdaifat, R. Obeidallah, G. Ghazal, A. A. Srhan, and N. R. Abu Spetan, “A proposed iris recognition model for authentication in mobile exams,” Int. J. Emerg. Technol. Learn vol. 15, no. 12, pp. 205–216, 2020.
L. C. O. Tiong and H. J. Lee, “E-cheating Prevention Measures: Detection of Cheating at Online Examinations Using Deep Learning Approach -- A Case Study,” arXiv Prepr. arXiv2101.09841, 2021.
F. Kamalov, H. Sulieman, and D. S. Calongne, “Machine learning based approach to exam cheating detection,” 2021. PLoS One, vol. 16, no. 8 August, pp. 1–15, 2021.
N. AbdulRazak and M. Ali, “Challenges of Implementation E-Learning Platforms in Iraqi Universities,” Eng. Technol. J., vol. 37, no. 4C, pp. 400–406, 2019.
A. K. M. Najmul Islam and N. Azad, “Satisfaction and continuance with a learning management system comparing perceptions of educators and students,” Int. J. Inf. Learn. Technol., vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 109–123, 2015.
Bablani A, Edla DR, Dodia S. Classification of EEG data using k-nearest neighbour approach for concealed information test. Procedia Comput Sci. 2018; 143:242–9.
Pedregosa F, et al. Scikit-learn: machine learning in python. J Mach Learn Res. 2011; 12:2825–30.
Natekin, A., & Knoll, A. (2013). Gradient boosting machines, a tutorial. Frontiers in Neurorobotics, 7(DEC). https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbot.2013.00021
Pedregosa F, et al. Scikit-learn: machine learning in python. J Mach Learn Res. 2011; 12:2825–30.
Bertsimas D, Dunn J, Paschalidis A. Regression and classification using optimal decision trees. In: 2017 IEEE MIT undergraduate research technology conference (URTC). 2017. p. 1–4.
https://www.kaggle.com/code/ademox02/eeg-brainwave-classification-for-beginners/notebook.
W. Zhu, N. Zeng, and N. Wang, “Sensitivity, Specificity, Accuracy, Associated Confidence Interval and ROC Analysis with Practical SAS® Implementations,” Northeast SAS Users Gr. 2010 Heal. Care Life Sci., pp. 1–9, 2010.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Luma H. H, Baraa M. A M. A.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
