Evidence Hub

Object classification from randomized EEG trials

Hamad Ahmed, Ronnie B Wilbur, Hari M Bharadwaj, Jeffrey Mark Siskind

arXiv, 2020

Abstract

New results suggest strong limits to the feasibility of classifying human brain activity evoked from image stimuli, as measured through EEG. Considerable prior work suffers from a confound between the stimulus class and the time since the start of the experiment. A prior attempt to avoid this confound using randomized trials was unable to achieve results above chance in a statistically significant fashion when the data sets were of the same size as the original experiments. Here, we again attempt to replicate these experiments with randomized trials on a far larger (20x) dataset of 1,000 stimulus presentations of each of forty classes, all from a single subject. To our knowledge, this is the largest such EEG data collection effort from a single subject and is at the bounds of feasibility. We obtain classification accuracy that is marginally above chance and above chance in a statistically significant fashion, and further assess how accuracy depends on the classifier used, the amount of training data used, and the number of classes. Reaching the limits of data collection without substantial improvement in classification accuracy suggests limits to the feasibility of this enterprise.

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free