There are various obstacles in the way of use of EEG. Among these, the major obstacles are the artifacts. While some artifacts are avoidable, due to the nature of the EEG techniques there are inevitable artifacts as well. Artifacts can be categorized as internal/physiological or external/non-physiological. The most common internal artifacts are ocular or muscular origins. Internal artifacts are difficult to detect and remove, because they contain signal information as well. For both resting state EEG and ERP studies, artifact handling needs to be carefully carried out in order to retain the maximal signal. Therefore, an effective management of these inevitable artifacts is critical for the EEG based researches. Many researchers from various fields studied this challenging phenomenon and came up with some solutions. However, the developed methods are not well known by the real practitioners of EEG as a tool because of their limited knowledge about these engineering approaches. They still use the traditional visual inspection of the EEG. This work aims to inform the researchers working in the field of EEG about the artifacts and artifact management options available in order to increase the awareness of the available tools such as EEG preprocessing pipelines.

Sleep is a natural form of rest for humans. People need sleep to perform their daily functions. Insufficient or unstable sleep may adversely affect the function of many systems in human body. Sleep disorders can be seen common and cause serious health problems that affect quality of life. From past to present, it has become imperative to classify sleep stages in order to accurately analyze and diagnose these disorders. This classification is made by people who are experts in the field of sleep. However, this process is a very laborious task that requires high attention, and since it is done by a human, it is quite normal to make wrong classifications. As a solution to this, it is possible to make these classifications with machine learning techniques to obtain more accurate results. In this study, we compared different classification methods with each other and examined the channel-based accuracy of the method that gives the highest accuracy based on channels. The accuracy of the Fine Gaussian SVM Method was 98.9% and the F1-score was 98.95, the accuracy of the Weighted KNN Method was 97.9% and the F1-score was 97.89, the accuracy of the Wide Neural Network Method was 97.4% and the F1-score was 97.09, the accuracy of the Cubic SVM Method was 96.2% and the F1-score was 96.36. When we examine the Fine Gaussian SVM Method with the highest accuracy based on channels, we found accuracy of only Fpz-CZ channel is 98.1%, accuracy of only Pz-Oz channel is 94.5%.

No abstract

Visual Evoked Potentials (VEPs) are used in clinical applications in ophthalmology, neurology and extensively in brain computer interface (BCI) research. BCI literature covers steady state VEP (SSVEP) and code modulated VEP (c-VEP) BCIs along with sophisticated methods to improve information transfer rates (ITR). There is a gap of knowledge regarding the VEP adaptation dynamics, physiological generation mechanisms and relation with BCI performance. A simple dual display VEP switch was developed to test signatures elicited by non-isochronic, non-singular, low jitter stimuli at the rates of 10, 32, 50 and 70 reversals per second (rps). Non-isochronic, low-jitter stimulation elicits Quasi-Steady-State VEPs (QSS-VEPs) that are utilized for simultaneous generation of transient VEP and QSS-VEP. QSS-VEP is a special case of c-VEPs and it is assumed that it shares the similar generators of the SSVEPs. Eight subjects were recorded and the performance of the overall system was analyzed by means of Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves, accuracy plots and ITRs. In summary QSS-VEPs performed better than transient VEPs. It was found that in general 32rps stimulation had the highest ROC area, accuracy and ITRs in general. To investigate the reasons behind this, adaptation dynamics of transient VEPs and QSS-VEPs at all four rates were analyzed and speculated. Moreover, QSS-VEPs were found to lead to higher accuracy by the template matching compared to SSVEPs at 10rps and 32rps.

Visual evoked potentials (VEPs) are used in clinical applications in ophthalmology, neurology, and extensively in brain–computer interface (BCI) research. Many BCI implementations utilize steady-state VEP (SSVEP) and/or code modulated VEP (c-VEP) as inputs, in tandem with sophisticated methods to improve information transfer rates (ITR). There is a gap in knowledge regarding the adaptation dynamics and physiological generation mechanisms of the VEP response, and the relation of these factors with BCI performance. A simple, dual pattern display setup was used to evoke VEPs and to test signatures elicited by non-isochronic, non-singular, low jitter stimuli at the rates of 10, 32, 50, and 70 reversals per second (rps). Non-isochronic, low-jitter stimulation elicits quasi-steady-state VEPs (QSS-VEPs) that are utilized for the simultaneous generation of transient VEP and QSS-VEP. QSS-VEP is a special case of c-VEPs, and it is assumed that it shares similar generators of the SSVEPs. Eight subjects were recorded, and the performance of the overall system was analyzed using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, accuracy plots, and ITRs. In summary, QSS-VEPs performed better than transient VEPs (TR-VEP). It was found that in general, 32 rps stimulation had the highest ROC area, accuracy, and ITRs. Moreover, QSS-VEPs were found to lead to higher accuracy by template matching compared to SSVEPs at 32 rps. To investigate the reasons behind this, adaptation dynamics of transient VEPs and QSS-VEPs at all four rates were analyzed and speculated.