Physics-informed and Unsupervised Riemannian Domain Adaptation for Machine Learning on Heterogeneous EEG Datasets (2403.15415v2)
Abstract: Combining electroencephalogram (EEG) datasets for supervised ML is challenging due to session, subject, and device variability. ML algorithms typically require identical features at train and test time, complicating analysis due to varying sensor numbers and positions across datasets. Simple channel selection discards valuable data, leading to poorer performance, especially with datasets sharing few channels. To address this, we propose an unsupervised approach leveraging EEG signal physics. We map EEG channels to fixed positions using field interpolation, facilitating source-free domain adaptation. Leveraging Riemannian geometry classification pipelines and transfer learning steps, our method demonstrates robust performance in brain-computer interface (BCI) tasks and potential biomarker applications. Comparative analysis against a statistical-based approach known as Dimensionality Transcending, a signal-based imputation called ComImp, source-dependent methods, as well as common channel selection and spherical spline interpolation, was conducted with leave-one-dataset-out validation on six public BCI datasets for a right-hand/left-hand classification task. Numerical experiments show that in the presence of few shared channels in train and test, the field interpolation consistently outperforms other methods, demonstrating enhanced classification performance across all datasets. When more channels are shared, field interpolation was found to be competitive with other methods and faster to compute than source-dependent methods.
- Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2005.
- M. Perslev, S. Darkner, L. Kempfner, M. Nikolic, P. J. Jennum, and C. Igel, “U-sleep: resilient high-frequency sleep staging,” NPJ digital medicine, vol. 4, no. 1, p. 72, 2021.
- L. A. Gemein, R. T. Schirrmeister, P. Chraba̧szcz, D. Wilson, et al., “Machine-learning-based diagnostics of eeg pathology,” NeuroImage, vol. 220, p. 117021, 2020.
- Wiley-ISTE, 2016.
- J. Dockès, G. Varoquaux, and J.-B. Poline, “Preventing dataset shift from breaking machine-learning biomarkers,” GigaScience, vol. 10, no. 9, p. giab055, 2021.
- T. Tveitstøl, M. Tveter, A. S. Pérez Teseyra, et al., “Introducing region based pooling for handling a varied number of eeg channels for deep learning models,” Frontiers in Neuroinformatics, vol. 17, p. 1272791.
- “2021 beetl competition: Advancing transfer learning for subject independence and heterogenous eeg data sets,”
- A. Mellot, A. Collas, P. L. C. Rodrigues, D. Engemann, and A. Gramfort, “Harmonizing and aligning M/EEG datasets with covariance-based techniques to enhance predictive regression modeling,” Imaging Neuroscience, vol. 1, pp. 1–23, 12 2023.
- D. Truong, M. A. Khalid, and A. Delorme, “Deep learning applied to eeg data with different montages using spatial attention,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.10550, 2023.
- P. L. Rodrigues, M. Congedo, and C. Jutten, “Dimensionality transcending: a method for merging bci datasets with different dimensionalities,” IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, vol. 68, no. 2, pp. 673–684, 2020.
- O. Ledoit and M. Wolf, “A well-conditioned estimator for large-dimensional covariance matrices,” Journal of multivariate analysis, vol. 88, no. 2, pp. 365–411, 2004.
- W. Förstner and B. Moonen, “A metric for covariance matrices,” Geodesy-the Challenge of the 3rd Millennium, pp. 299–309, 2003.
- A. Barachant, S. Bonnet, M. Congedo, and C. Jutten, “Multiclass brain–computer interface classification by riemannian geometry,” IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, vol. 59, no. 4, pp. 920–928, 2012.
- O. Yair, M. Ben-Chen, and R. Talmon, “Parallel transport on the cone manifold of spd matrices for domain adaptation,” IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, vol. 67, no. 7, pp. 1797–1811, 2019.
- P. L. C. Rodrigues, C. Jutten, and M. Congedo, “Riemannian procrustes analysis: Transfer learning for brain–computer interfaces,” IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, vol. 66, no. 8, pp. 2390–2401, 2018.
- T. Nguyen, R. Khadka, N. Phan, A. Yazidi, P. Halvorsen, and M. A. Riegler, “Combining datasets to increase the number of samples and improve model fitting,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.05165, 2022.
- F. Pedregosa et al., “Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python ,” Journal of Machine Learning Research, vol. 12, pp. 2825–2830, 2011.
- F. Perrin, J. Pernier, O. Bertrand, and J. Echallier, “Spherical splines for scalp potential and current density mapping,” Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, vol. 72, no. 2, pp. 184–187, 1989.
- A. Gramfort et al., “MEG and EEG data analysis with MNE-Python,” Frontiers in Neuroscience, vol. 7, no. 267, pp. 1–13, 2013.
- M. S. Hämäläinen and R. J. Ilmoniemi, “Interpreting magnetic fields of the brain: minimum norm estimates,” Medical & biological engineering & computing, vol. 32, pp. 35–42, 1994.
- B. Aristimunha, I. Carrara, P. Guetschel, S. Sedlar, P. Rodrigues, et al., “Mother of all BCI Benchmarks,” 2023.