2014
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0114853
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Evaluation of EEG Oscillatory Patterns and Cognitive Process during Simple and Compound Limb Motor Imagery

Abstract: Motor imagery (MI), sharing similar neural representations to motor execution, is regarded as a window to investigate the cognitive motor processes. However, in comparison to simple limb motor imagery, significantly less work has been reported on brain oscillatory patterns induced by compound limb motor imagery which involves several parts of limbs. This study aims to investigate differences of the electroencephalogram (EEG) patterns as well as cognitive process between simple limb motor imagery and compound l… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

2
41
0
1

Year Published

2017
2017
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
9
1

Relationship

1
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 61 publications
(44 citation statements)
references
References 29 publications
2
41
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Compound limb motor imagery (cMI) is a more complex cognitive process than simple limb motor imagery (sMI) [18]. Fig.…”
Section: Results For Dataset Bmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Compound limb motor imagery (cMI) is a more complex cognitive process than simple limb motor imagery (sMI) [18]. Fig.…”
Section: Results For Dataset Bmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This is not unexpected, since connectivity features, in general, have so far shown only moderate success in classification of motor imagery tasks [ 98 , 99 ]. It should be also noted that some effort has been made in analyzing effective networks of compound motor imagery tasks [ 100 ]. Differentiating anatomical levels and consecutive classification should perhaps be better explored along the lines of time-varying connectivity [ 95 , 101 103 ] instead of spatial pattern analysis.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Eight MI datasets were used in our experiments (Schalk et al, 2004;Leeb et al, 2007;Tangermann et al, 2012;Yi et al, 2014;Zhou et al, 2016;Cho et al, 2017). All datasets are publicly available and details of them are listed in Table 1.…”
Section: Datasetsmentioning
confidence: 99%