Across-subject offline decoding of motor imagery from MEG and EEG

• Published in: Scientific reports Vol. 8; no. 1; pp. 10087 - 12
• Main Authors: Halme, Hanna-Leena, Parkkonen, Lauri
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: London Nature Publishing Group UK 04.07.2018; Nature Publishing Group
• Subjects: 631/378; 631/443/376; Accuracy; Adult; Algorithms; Brain-Computer Interfaces; Calibration; EEG; Electroencephalography - methods; Feedback; Female; Hand - physiology; Humanities and Social Sciences; Humans; Imagery, Psychotherapy - methods; Interfaces; Magnetoencephalography - methods; Male; Mental task performance; Movement - physiology; multidisciplinary; Neurofeedback - physiology; Science; Science (multidisciplinary); Training
• ISSN: 2045-2322; 2045-2322
• DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-28295-z

Long calibration time hinders the feasibility of brain-computer interfaces (BCI). If other subjects’ data were used for training the classifier, BCI-based neurofeedback practice could start without the initial calibration. Here, we compare methods for inter-subject decoding of left- vs. right-hand motor imagery (MI) from MEG and EEG. Six methods were tested on data involving MEG and EEG measurements of healthy participants. Inter-subject decoders were trained on subjects showing good within-subject accuracy, and tested on all subjects, including poor performers. Three methods were based on Common Spatial Patterns (CSP), and three others on logistic regression with l 1 - or l 2,1 -norm regularization. The decoding accuracy was evaluated using (1) MI and (2) passive movements (PM) for training, separately for MEG and EEG. With MI training, the best accuracies across subjects (mean 70.6% for MEG, 67.7% for EEG) were obtained using multi-task learning (MTL) with logistic regression and l 2,1 -norm regularization. MEG yielded slightly better average accuracies than EEG. With PM training, none of the inter-subject methods yielded above chance level (58.7%) accuracy. In conclusion, MTL and training with other subject’s MI is efficient for inter-subject decoding of MI. Passive movements of other subjects are likely suboptimal for training the MI classifiers.