OPTICAL+: a frequency-based deep learning scheme for recognizing brain wave signals OPTICAL+: a frequency-based deep learning scheme for recognizing brain wave signals Shiu Kumar1, Ronesh Sharma1 and Alok Sharma2,3,4 1 School of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Fiji National University, Suva, Fiji 2 STEMP, University of the South Pacific, Suva, Fiji 3 Institute for Integrated and Intelligent Systems, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia 4 Laboratory for Medical Science Mathematics, RIKEN Center for Integrative Medical Sciences, Yokohama, Kanagawa, Japan ABSTRACT A human–computer interaction (HCI) system can be used to detect different categories of the brain wave signals that can be beneficial for neurorehabilitation, seizure detection and sleep stage classification. Research on developing HCI systems using brain wave signals has progressed a lot over the years. However, real-time implementation, computational complexity and accuracy are still a concern. In this work, we address the problem of selecting the appropriate filtering frequency band while also achieving a good system performance by proposing a frequency-based approach using long short-term memory network (LSTM) for recognizing different brain wave signals. Adaptive filtering using genetic algorithm is incorporated for a hybrid system utilizing common spatial pattern and LSTM network. The proposed method (OPTICAL+) achieved an overall average classification error rate of 30.41% and a kappa coefficient value of 0.398, outperforming the state-of-the-art methods. The proposed OPTICAL+ predictor can be used to develop improved HCI systems that will aid in neurorehabilitation and may also be beneficial for sleep stage classification and seizure detection. Subjects Human-Computer Interaction, Artificial Intelligence, Brain-Computer Interface Keywords Human-computer interaction (HCI), Brain wave, Long short-term memory (LSTM), Common spatial pattern (CSP), Motor imagery (MI), Informative frequency band (IFB) INTRODUCTION A human–computer interaction (HCI) system uses cutting-edge techniques for establishing direct communication between the human brain and a computer (Li et al., 2016). HCI has gained tremendous attention over the recent years with the major focus being in gaming and biomedical applications. An HCI system, also widely known as a brain–computer interface (BCI) system, converts the mental state (brain waves) of humans into computer commands which can be used by the disabled people to recover their environmental control capabilities (Wang et al., 2016). It can also be used to detect pre-seizure activities (Zhou et al., 2018) and sleep stages (Yulita et al., 2018). The human brain waves are usually captured using electroencephalography (EEG) sensors, with non-invasive sensors preferred over invasive sensors due to the fact that surgery is required for invasive sensors and those non-invasive sensors can be integrated into wearable devices (Mullen et al., 2013). However, the drawback of using non-invasive sensors is that it is How to cite this article Kumar S, Sharma R, Sharma A. 2021. OPTICAL+: a frequency-based deep learning scheme for recognizing brain wave signals. PeerJ Comput. Sci. 7:e375 DOI 10.7717/peerj-cs.375 Submitted 10 November 2020 Accepted 6 January 2021 Published 4 February 2021 Corresponding author Shiu Kumar, shiu.kumar@fnu.ac.fj Academic editor Robertas Damaševičius Additional Information and Declarations can be found on page 16 DOI 10.7717/peerj-cs.375 Copyright 2021 Kumar et al. Distributed under Creative Commons CC-BY 4.0 http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.375 mailto:shiu.�kumar@�fnu.�ac.�fj https://peerj.com/academic-boards/editors/ https://peerj.com/academic-boards/editors/ http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.375 http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ https://peerj.com/computer-science/ prone to environmental noise, which results in the captured signal having a low signal-to- noise ratio (SNR). Therefore, it becomes quite a challenging task to recognize different categories of brain wave signals with high accuracy. The automatic classification of EEG signals is a significant step towards making the use of EEG more practical in applications and less dependent on the experts. The electrical potentials generated by the brain for different specific tasks are recorded from the scalp using EEG sensors. These signals are well structured, which makes it appropriate for machine learning. Thus, a vast number of researchers have explored or proposed various traditional methods (Abibullaev & Zollanvari, 2019; Borhani et al., 2019; Chowdhury et al., 2019; Jiao et al., 2019; Kumar, Sharma & Tsunoda, 2019a, 2019b; Mumtaz et al., 2018; Utsumi et al., 2018; Wang et al., 2018; Xing et al., 2018; Xu et al., 2018; Zhang et al., 2018) aiming to build a system that has low complexity and a high recognition rate for classification of the brain wave signals. Brain wave signals have gained recognition for a number of applications such as neuro-rehabilitation (Chowdhury et al., 2019; Neurostyle, 2017; Zeng et al., 2017), sleep-stage classification (Radha et al., 2019; Xu et al., 2020), seizure detection (Gao et al., 2020; Zhou & Li, 2020), emotion recognition (Liu et al., 2020; Yang et al., 2019) and biometric recognition where identification of individuals is done using their brain wave signals. For example, in Damaševičius et al. (2018) the authors have proposed a biometric system that combines cryptography with EEG signals for recognizing different individuals. Several authors have also explored the possibilities of data compression (Rajasekar & Pushpalatha, 2020) for reducing the bandwidth required in data transfer and feature selection or reduction approaches such as wave atom transform (Martisius et al., 2013), feature selection using F-statistic values (Peng et al., 2020) and locally-robust feature selection approach (Yin et al., 2020). Common spatial pattern (CSP) and its variants (Cheng, Lu & Wang, 2017; Ramoser, Muller-Gerking & Pfurtscheller, 2000) are the prevailing feature extraction methods for motor imagery (MI) EEG signal classification. Filter bank CSP (FBCSP) (Ang et al., 2008), discriminative FBCSP (DFBCSP) (Thomas et al., 2009), sparse filter band CSP (SFBCSP) (Zhang et al., 2015), and binary particle swarm optimization approach for frequency band selection (Wei & Wei, 2015) are few of the methods that utilize CSP for feature extraction. These methods have focused on using multiple filter bands and in some cases finding individual-dependent frequency bands that would produce good classification ability. Several other approaches have also been proposed using CSP for extracting potentially significant features from the EEG signals after performing certain analysis. However, the EEG features vary over time and differ significantly in different individuals (Blankertz et al., 2010). Thus, there has been an ever-increasing demand for robust and more general feature extraction techniques. A number of approaches have been proposed based on deep learning (convolutional neural networks—CNN (Wu et al., 2019; Yuksel & Olmez, 2015) and long short-term memory network (LSTM) (Kumar, Sharma & Tsunoda, 2019a)), feature priority and selection (Li & Feng, 2019; Luo et al., 2016), empirical mode decomposition (Gaur et al., 2018; Mingai et al., 2016), wavelet packet decomposition (Yang et al., 2016), Hjorth parameters (Türk et al., 2017), tangent space mapping (Kumar, Mamun & Sharma, 2017) Kumar et al. (2021), PeerJ Comput. Sci., DOI 10.7717/peerj-cs.375 2/20 http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.375 https://peerj.com/computer-science/ and channel selection (Ghaemi et al., 2017). While these approaches have aimed to increase the classification accuracy to some extent, their performance is still limited because the EEG signals acquired from the scalp using non-invasive sensors usually have low SNR. A signal with low SNR contains a lot of unwanted noise which degrades the performance of an algorithm in recognizing the different categories of the brain wave signals. One way to obtain an EEG signal with better quality, that is, a signal with good SNR is by using invasive sensors. However, invasive sensors require surgery, which is not preferred by many people and is rarely used for HCI applications. Therefore, there is a need to enhance the quality of the signal acquired using non-invasive sensors such that it contains useful information that can aid in recognizing the different categories of the MI EEG signals. Several methods have been proposed for artifact removal, amongst which is a recently proposed movement artifact removal approach for EEG analysis in sports exercise (Butkevičiūtė et al., 2019). However, one of the simple methods to remove the artifacts or unwanted noise is by filtering. The responsive frequency band differs from one individual to another (Ang et al., 2008; Kumar, Sharma & Tsunoda, 2017; Novi et al., 2007; Poli, Kennedy & Blackwell, 2007) due to different skull size, skin thickness and the fact that the way one individual thinks about a task differs from the way another individual thinks about the same task. Therefore, using a fixed filter band will not produce a signal of the best quality. Moreover, manually tuning the filter bank for each individual is a tedious and time-consuming task. Thus, a method that automatically finds the subject-dependent filter band that will produce the most responsive signal is desired. The authors in Wei & Wei (2015) have employed binary particle swarm optimization algorithm for selecting the best frequency band(s) from 10 overlapping sub-bands for the classification of motor imagery EEG signals. Although performance improvement has been achieved, multiple sub-bands can be selected which will increase the computation time of the system. On the other hand, the sub-bands are pre-defined and as such this approach might ignore some important information. In Wodecki, Michalak & Zimroz (2018), the authors have used progressive genetic algorithm (GA) for optimal filter design for vibration signal analysis. The informative frequency band (IFB) that contains the most information about the damage depends on many factors, such as kinematic structure, operational conditions, type of damage and its location within the machine and thus the progressive GA algorithm has been proposed for finding the IFB. The filter coefficients of a linear phase digital finite impulse response filter is optimized with no restriction on the search space of the filter coefficients, which will increase the time taken to search for the optimal filter. Therefore, in order to address these issues, we propose a simple yet an effective adaptive filtering approach to obtain the signal that is of the best quality and combine it with our previous work (Kumar, Sharma & Tsunoda, 2019a) to obtain a predictor called OPTICAL+ which is able to outperform the state-of-the-art methods. In OPTICAL+, we use GA to optimize the parameters of a Butterworth bandpass filter, which finds the most IFB for each individual using which the most responsive signal can be obtained. Filtering the signal using this frequency band aids in reducing the unwanted noise while retaining the useful information contained in the signal. Thus, a signal that captures most of the useful information needed to recognize the different categories of Kumar et al. (2021), PeerJ Comput. Sci., DOI 10.7717/peerj-cs.375 3/20 http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.375 https://peerj.com/computer-science/ MI-EEG signals will be obtained. This helps in obtaining features that are discriminative. After filtering, the features generated using CSP and LSTM are used to train a support vector machine (SVM) classifier. This trained SVM model is then used to classify the test samples. The contributions of this work can be summarized as follows: � A single adaptive Butterworth filter is employed that is tuned using the GA algorithm for finding the IFB specific to each individual, which results in an improved performance in terms of brain wave classification. The search space is kept to a minimum of three parameters (filter order and upper and lower cutoff frequencies) to be able to find the parameters of the adaptive filter in the shortest possible time. � The adaptive filter is integrated with the OPTICAL predictor, resulting in a new predictor named OPTICAL+, which can enhance the overall classification ability of the system. The proposed adaptive filter can be easily integrated with other methods to offer a better classification performance. The rest of the article is organized as follows. The next section describes the dataset used and the proposed method. The results are presented and discussed in “Results and Discussion”. Finally, the paper ends with conclusions and future recommendations. MATERIALS AND METHODS In this section, we present a brief description of the dataset that has been used to evaluate the proposed method, followed by a detailed description of the proposed OPTICAL+ predictor. Dataset description The publicly available GigaDB dataset (Cho et al., 2017) has been used in this work. It contains EEG signals for MI tasks recorded from 52 healthy subjects (33 males and 19 females). Data was collected as previously described in Kumar, Sharma & Tsunoda (2019a). Specifically, data was acquired at a sampling rate of 512 Hz using 64 Ag/AgCl active electrodes placed around the scalp based on the international 10-10 system. The EEG signals were recorded for the following tasks: left and right hand MI tasks, eyeball movement left/right, eyeball movement up/down, eye blinking, jaw clenching, head movement, and rest state. For each subject, either 100 or 120 trials of each of the left and right hand MI tasks were recorded. Out of the 52 subjects, the data of 38 subjects are well-discriminated while the remaining subject’s data is less discriminated. In this work, we have used the EEG signals for the left and right hand MI tasks. A detailed description of the dataset can be found online (Cho et al., 2017). Methods Deep learning has been widely used in MI classification and has achieved satisfactory results. To make full use of the feature information, we propose a frequency-based approach embedded into the LSTM network, while also making use of the commonly used CSP approach for feature extraction. The overall framework of the proposed OPTICAL+ Kumar et al. (2021), PeerJ Comput. Sci., DOI 10.7717/peerj-cs.375 4/20 http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.375 https://peerj.com/computer-science/ predictor is shown in Fig. 1. GA is first initialized with random parameters having a population size of 10. Two sets of spatial filters are then learned from the training samples. The first set of spatial filters is learned directly from the original training samples, while the second set of spatial filters is learned using the segmented data as shown is Fig. 1. CSP features are then obtained from both the spatially filtered data. The CSP features obtained from the first set of spatially filtered data becomes the first set of features to the SVM model. On the other hand, the CSP features extracted from the second set of spatially filtered data is fed as the sequence input to the LSTM network for training the model. The output of the LSTM network is a regression layer, which also becomes one of the features to the SVM model. Thus, the SVM model is trained using the training samples and evaluated using the evaluation samples. During this process of GA searching for the best filter parameters, 10-fold cross-validation is used for training and evaluating the performance of the selected filter parameters. Thus, the value of the fitness function is the average of the error rates obtained from the 10-folds. In this way, 10 fitness function values are obtained (one for each chromosome) during each phase of the fitness function evaluation. The GA search is carried out for 35 iterations unless an error rate of zero is achieved (in this case the search process of GA will stop) and the best parameters will be determined. Once the three filter parameters have been determined, all the training data is filtered using the adaptive filter that is learned, the spatial filters are again computed and the LSTM and SVM model is retrained. These spatial filters and trained models are Figure 1 Conceptual framework of the proposed OPTICAL+ predictor. Full-size DOI: 10.7717/peerj-cs.375/fig-1 Kumar et al. (2021), PeerJ Comput. Sci., DOI 10.7717/peerj-cs.375 5/20 http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.375/fig-1 http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.375 https://peerj.com/computer-science/ then used during the test phase for classifying the new test samples. The following sub- sections present each of the phase of the proposed method in more detail. Adaptive filtering Pre-processing the signals to obtain a clean signal is a fundamental concept for any signal processing approach. One of the key methods of obtaining a good quality EEG signal from the raw EEG data is through filtering. The EEG signal that will contain important MI task information usually lies between 0.5 Hz and 40 Hz. However, the actual frequency range that will provide important information about the different MI tasks varies amongst different individuals. This fact paves the way to develop methods that can automatically learn or find the IFB. While the use of multiple frequency bands has been proposed (Ang et al., 2008; Thomas et al., 2009), it increases the computational complexity of the system. Therefore, we propose the use of a single adaptive filter band using GA. The bandpass Butterworth filter has been utilized in this work due to the lower number of parameters that needs to be selected, which keeps the search space small. However, other filters can also be used with our proposed method. The three parameters that were tuned for the adaptive filter were the filter order, upper cutoff frequency and lower cutoff frequency. 10-fold cross-validation is performed on training data to search for the filter parameters that would result in the optimal performance of the proposed system. The adaptive filter parameters found are then used to filter the test data. Genetic algorithm Genetic Algorithm (GA) is an iterative search procedure based on natural selection and genetics that is widely used for optimization and search problems. A d dimensional population of chromosomes representing the possible solutions is generated randomly, where d depends on the number of parameters to be optimized. In this work, we optimized d = 3 parameters (filter order, upper cutoff frequency and lower cutoff frequency). This first generation of the solutions is referred to as the parents. Only a few parents are then selected, from which children are generated using the cross-over method. Several methods such as Roulette wheel selection, rank selection, tournament selection, stochastic universal sampling and random selection can be used for selecting the parents. We have utilized the tournament selection approach for selecting the parents. Mutants are then formed by performing mutation on several randomly selected parents. The chromosomes that survive during the process of survivor selection become the parents in the next iteration. This process is repeated until the desired fitness condition or the desired number of iterations are reached. The chromosome that gives the best fitness value is selected and used to set the filter parameters of the adaptive filter for final training and testing. Common spatial pattern Common Spatial Pattern (CSP) is one of the major approaches used for feature extraction of MI-EEG signals. It projects the signal onto a new time series, where the variance of one class of signals is maximized while the variance of the other class of signals is minimized. Refer to Kumar et al. (2016) for a detailed explanation of the CSP algorithm. Kumar et al. (2021), PeerJ Comput. Sci., DOI 10.7717/peerj-cs.375 6/20 http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.375 https://peerj.com/computer-science/ Given an input signal En 2 RC � T, the spatially filtered signal can be obtained using (1), where n represents the n-th trial, c represents the number of channels and t is the number of sample points. The CSP variance-based features are then extracted using (2), where Êin represents the i-th row of Ên. In this work, we have selected 6 spatial filters (m = 3), therefore, 6 CSP variance-based features are obtained. Ên ¼ WTCSP En (1) Fn ¼ log varðÊinÞP2m j¼1 varðÊ j nÞ ! (2) Long short-term memory network Deep learning has been increasingly applied for solving real-life applications with good performance. Usually, deep learning methods such as convolutional neural networks were applied to image data. However, recurrent neural networks (RNN) such as LSTM are used for learning time series data. The long-term information of time series data can be stored by the LSTM network, and later used together with the current data to generate the output. The EEG signal architecture comprises of common temporal patterns when MI tasks are not performed. Therefore, non-temporal techniques may not be able to achieve optimal performance due to the shortfall that they will not be able to exploit the dependency between the time steps (i.e., current and past data) (Radha et al., 2019). Recurrent models such as LSTM are able to tackle this problem that normal RNN’s can’t by learning short-term dependencies for a very long time. Thus, we utilize an LSTM network in this work, which is a RNN that has an LSTM layer. The LSTM network architecture used in this work is shown in Fig. 2. The input to the network is a sequence input, followed by 2 LSTM layers, the fully connected layer and a regression layer at the output. The sequence input layer is used to provide the time series or sequence input to the network. The LSTM layer learns long-term dependencies between a series of sequence data. The LSTM layer architecture used in this work is shown in Fig. 3, which shows how the d-dimensional sequence input matrix F with a length of s flows through the LSTM layer. The Fiwj represents the sequence input where i denotes the i-th feature obtained from the j-th windowed segment of the respective trial (details on how to obtain sequence input matrix can be found in our previous work (Kumar, Sharma & Tsunoda, 2019a)). The h and c denote the hidden/output states and cell states, respectively. The initial state of the network and the first sequence input Fiw1 becomes the input for the first LSTM block, which computes the first output h1 and c1 (updated cell states). 1st LSTM Layer 2nd LSTM Layer Fully Connected Layer Regression Output Layer Sequence Input Layer Figure 2 The LSTM network architecture used in OPTICAL+ predictor. Full-size DOI: 10.7717/peerj-cs.375/fig-2 Kumar et al. (2021), PeerJ Comput. Sci., DOI 10.7717/peerj-cs.375 7/20 http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.375/fig-2 http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.375 https://peerj.com/computer-science/ The LSTM blocks in between the first and last LSTM block takes Fiw1 sequence input and current states of the network (ct−1, ht−1) for the t-th LSTM block for computing the updated output state ht and the updated cell state ct. Information that is learned from previous sequence inputs are contained by the cell states. Information is added or removed (update controlled using gates) from the cell states at each step of the sequence input. An LSTM architecture usually consists of four main parts; the input gate, memory cell, forget gate and the output gate. The values (states) are remembered or stored by the memory cells for either short or long times. The function of the input gate is to control the degree to which new data or information can flow into the cell of the LSTM layer, the purpose of the forget gate is to control the degree to which certain value or information remains in the cell of the LSTM layer, while the function of the output gate is to control the amount of stored information that is utilized for computing the output activation. Figure 4 shows how the data flows through the LSTM block for the t-th step of the input sequence. The input weights W, recurrent weights R and bias b are the weights that are learned by the LSTM layer. The cell state at step t of the input sequence is calculated by Ct ¼ ft � ct�1 þ it � gt while the hidden/output state is calculated by ht ¼ ot � rc ctð Þ ht ¼ ot � sc ctð Þ, where i, f, g and o denotes the input gate, forget gate, cell candidate and output gate, respectively. The (·) operator represents the element-wise multiplication (Hadamard product operator) and σc i wF 1 i wF 2 i wt F iwsF LSTM Block LSTM Block LSTM Block LSTM Block co ho LSTM Layer Final Updated State Initial State h1 h2 ht hs . . . . . . Figure 3 The LSTM layer architecture used in OPTICAL+ predictor. Full-size DOI: 10.7717/peerj-cs.375/fig-3 Figure 4 Diagram showing the flow of data through the LSTM block for t-th step of the input sequence (MathWorks, 2018). Full-size DOI: 10.7717/peerj-cs.375/fig-4 Kumar et al. (2021), PeerJ Comput. Sci., DOI 10.7717/peerj-cs.375 8/20 http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.375/fig-3 http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.375/fig-4 http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.375 https://peerj.com/computer-science/ denotes the state activation function. Each of the components at sequence input t is calculated using Eqs. (3)–(6). The tangent hyperbolic function has been used as the state activation function, sc xð Þ ¼ tanh xð Þ while the sigmoid function is used as the gate activation function, sg xð Þ ¼ 1 þ e�xð Þ�1. it ¼ rg Wixt þ Riht�1 þ bið Þ (3) ft ¼ rg Wf xt þ Rf ht�1 þ bf � � (4) gt ¼ rc Wgxt þ Rght�1 þ bg � � (5) ot ¼ rg Woxt þ Roht�1 þ boð Þ (6) RESULTS AND DISCUSSION In order to evaluate the feasibility and performance of the proposed system, experiments have been conducted using the GigaDB dataset. These experiments are conducted using Matlab running on a personal computer at 3.3 GHz with Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 processor. The GigaDB dataset is used to evaluate the proposed method as it has a large number of individuals (52 individuals) and would generalize well for comparing the performance of the different methods. We extracted 2 s window signal after the visual cue was presented to obtain trial data for the different MI tasks (left hand and right hand) as done in other related works (Cho et al., 2017; Kumar & Sharma, 2018; Kumar, Sharma & Tsunoda, 2017, 2019b; Zhang et al., 2017). Basic pre-processing is performed, where common average referencing is applied to all the trials. The performance measures that are used to evaluate the performance of the proposed system are the error rate (% of samples that are misclassified), sensitivity, specificity, and Cohen’s kappa index (κ). The error rate shows the percentage of trials that are incorrectly classified. The sensitivity and specificity shows the ability of the classifier or model to correctly classify the positive and negative trials, respectively. The Cohen’s kappa index is used to measure the reliability of the classifier and a higher value signifies that the system is more reliable. RESULTS For a fair comparison, all the methods have been implemented and the results obtained using 10 × 10-fold cross-validation scheme is reported. Table 1 shows the comparison of the 10 × 10-fold cross-validation results of the proposed OPTICAL+ predictor with the other state-of-the-art methods. It can be noted from Table 1 that the proposed method outperformed all the other methods in terms of the error rate, sensitivity, specificity and κ. It shows that our proposed method is reliable and more robust as it achieved the highest κ value. Our proposed method outperformed the top performing OPTICAL method by 1.40%, 1.30%, 1.60%, and 6.42% in terms of the error rate, Kumar et al. (2021), PeerJ Comput. Sci., DOI 10.7717/peerj-cs.375 9/20 http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.375 https://peerj.com/computer-science/ sensitivity, specificity and κ, respectively. The results for the individual subjects can be found in the Supplemental Materials. Out of the 52 subjects, 21 subjects achieved the lowest error rate using the proposed approach. This is the highest number of subjects achieving the lowest error rates using a particular method with I-DFBCSP achieving the second-highest number of subjects (10 subjects) with the lowest error rates. Compared to the OPTICAL method, the error rates for 32 subjects improved using the OPTICAL+ method with the highest improvement being a 10% decrease in the error rate (subject 48). We also present the results of the individual subjects for our proposed OPTICAL+ predictor in Fig. 5, where the error bars represent the 95% confidence interval. The results of the individual subjects for the other competing methods can be found in the Supplemental Material. It can be noted that our proposed method achieved the lowest width of the 95% confidence interval for 15 out of 52 subjects. This number is higher than Table 1 10 × 10-fold cross-validation results of the different methods. Method Number of filters Error rate Sensitivity Specificity κ CSP 1 34.07 0.664 0.651 0.343 DFBCSP [1] 4 38.46 0.619 0.616 0.266 SBLFB [3] 17 33.88 0.666 0.658 0.339 CSP-TSM [6] 1 35.02 0.654 0.647 0.323 SFTOFSRC [8] 16 36.80 0.623 0.531 0.291 SS-MEMDBF [11] 1 37.09 0.633 0.624 0.297 TFPO-CSP [26] 1 32.76 0.684 0.674 0.383 I-DFBCSP [28] 4 33.31 0.669 0.663 0.364 OPTICAL [13] 1 31.81 0.688 0.675 0.374 OPTICAL+ 1 30.41 0.701 0.691 0.398 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 etarrorre egatnecreP Subject Figure 5 Error rates of the individual subjects for the proposed OPTICAL+ predictor. Full-size DOI: 10.7717/peerj-cs.375/fig-5 Kumar et al. (2021), PeerJ Comput. Sci., DOI 10.7717/peerj-cs.375 10/20 http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.375#supplemental-information http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.375#supplemental-information http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.375/fig-5 http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.375 https://peerj.com/computer-science/ that of any other competing methods. Over 96% of the subjects have a width of 95% confidence interval of less than ±3.75%. This shows that our proposed method can produce similar results if repeated under the same conditions. Thus, we can say that the proposed OPTICAL+ predictor is reliable as it achieved the lowest average width of 95% confidence interval showing that the proposed OPTICAL+ predictor has the lowest variation around its reported statistical mean. DISCUSSION The proposed OPTICAL+ predictor outperformed all the other state-of-the-art methods. The GigaDB dataset has been used to evaluate all the methods as it has a large number of subjects (52 subjects) and using this dataset shows the reliability and robustness of the approaches. Reliability in this work specifically refers to the degree to which a test produces similar results under consistent conditions and robustness refers to the strength of the approach. It is worth noting that approaches such as DFBCSP, SFTOFSRC, CSP-TSM and SS-MEMDBF have shown to perform well on small datasets (BCI Competition datasets). However, they did not perform well on the GigaDB dataset. On the other hand, the proposed OPTICAL+ predictor generalized well compared to these methods, showing that it is a more reliable and robust predictor for predicting the MI-EEG signals since it achieved the highest κ value. We say that our proposed system is more reliable because it is able to generate similar results under consistent conditions obtaining the lowest average standard deviation of 9.06 in comparison with the other competing methods. On the other hand, we argue that our approach is more robust in comparison to other methods as it is able to perform well (obtaining lowest error rate) for a substantial number of subjects (21 out of 52 subjects). This is considerably higher than the other methods as the number of subjects for which the competing methods obtained the lowest error rate are as follows: CSP—2, SBLFB—4, TFPO-CSP—7, I-DFBCSP—10 and OPTICAL—7. Moreover, to show that the performance improvement achieved by our proposed OPTICAL+ predictor is significant, paired t-test with a significance level of 0.01 has been performed. The results of the individual subjects for the proposed OPTICAL+ predictor and the results of the individual subjects for the OPTICAL and TFPO-CSP predictors have been used to perform the paired t-test. The p-values obtained were 0.0015 and 0.0009, respectively. This indicates that a significant performance improvement has been achieved using the proposed OPTICAL+ predictor as the p-values obtained are <0.01. Figure 6 presents the distribution of the best two features for the CSP , OPTICAL and the proposed OPTICAL+ method that was obtained using one of the trial runs of subject 48. It can noted from Fig. 6 that more separable features are obtained by the proposed OPTICAL+ predictor in comparison to the conventional CSP and OPTICAL methods, thus, accounting for the enhanced performance of the proposed OPTICAL+ predictor. This is due to the optimization of the filter parameters, which results in the signal containing significant information while filtering out most of the redundant information. This leads to learning better CSP spatial filters that project data onto a new time series Kumar et al. (2021), PeerJ Comput. Sci., DOI 10.7717/peerj-cs.375 11/20 http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.375 https://peerj.com/computer-science/ Figure 6 Distribution of the best two CSP features obtained using conventional CSP approach and proposed method. Full-size DOI: 10.7717/peerj-cs.375/fig-6 Kumar et al. (2021), PeerJ Comput. Sci., DOI 10.7717/peerj-cs.375 12/20 http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.375/fig-6 http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.375 https://peerj.com/computer-science/ which are more separable, thus resulting in improved performance. The 6 spatial filters learned from one of the trial runs of subject 48 are shown in Fig. 7 for with and without optimization of the filter parameters. Figure 7 demonstrates that the CSP spatial filters learned when the filter parameters are optimized (OPTICAL+ spatial filters) were better than the CSP spatial filters learned when the filter parameters were not optimized as Figure 7 The six spatial filters learned by the conventional CSP approach (A–F) and the proposed OPTICAL+ predictor (G–L) for subject 48 (for one of the trial runs). Full-size DOI: 10.7717/peerj-cs.375/fig-7 Kumar et al. (2021), PeerJ Comput. Sci., DOI 10.7717/peerj-cs.375 13/20 http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.375/fig-7 http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.375 https://peerj.com/computer-science/ they were able to project the data to a new time series with the projected signal having more discrimination between the two MI tasks. This is evident, as Fig. 6 shows that the features learned from OPTICAL+ are more separable, resulting in higher classification accuracy. Furthermore, we also performed experiments whereby we optimized the filter parameters followed by the optimization of the LSTM network using Bayesian optimization. The results for the individual subjects compared with the proposed OPTICAL+ predictor is shown in Fig. 8. The error rate for most of the subjects increased compared to the OPTICAL+ predictor. The overall performance of the system did not improve as the average error rate increased to 33.75%. This may be mainly due to over-fitting as both the filter parameters and the LSTM networks hyper-parameters were optimized consecutively and as such, this approach was not adopted. In future, we will perform further experiments to see if performance improvements can be achieved by simultaneously optimizing both the filter parameters and the LSTM hyperparameters. Further works will be carried out in future where multiple sub-bands will be tested. Also, since convolutional neural network (CNN) has gained a lot of attention over the recent years, we will evaluate the use of CNN for MI-EEG signal classification by developing a hybrid model utilizing CNN with OPTICAL+. Moreover, CNN works well on image data, therefore, method such as DeepInsight (Sharma et al., 2019) can be used to transform the EEG signal to image before being fed as input to the CNN model. To add on, we have employed an LSTM network with peephole connections in this work. However, in future we will also consider the LSTM network with gated recurrent units, multiplicative LSTM (Krause et al., 2017) and LSTM networks with attention. All models trained in this work are subject-dependent, which is in agreement with the related works. Moreover, we have used GA in this work to demonstrate the significance Figure 8 The error rates of OPTICAL predictor with optimization of the filter parameters and OPTICAL+ predictor. Full-size DOI: 10.7717/peerj-cs.375/fig-8 Kumar et al. (2021), PeerJ Comput. Sci., DOI 10.7717/peerj-cs.375 14/20 http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.375/fig-8 http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.375 https://peerj.com/computer-science/ of optimizing the filter band parameters. However, any other optimization algorithm can be employed with the proposed OPTICAL+ predictor. Furthermore, in future, we also intend to test how the proposed method would perform on other EEG signal classification tasks, such as sleep stage classification and seizure classification. Moreover, although our proposed approach has outperformed other competing methods on various performance measures, it does have some limitations. One of the limitations of the proposed OPTICAL+ predictor is that we have used a population size of 10 with three parameters to be optimized. This results in an average time of about 5 minutes for finding the optimal parameters of the adaptive filter. This means that if any other filter that will require more parameters to be tuned is used, then it will lead to even higher training time. Thus, higher computational resources will be required for training. However, we believe this is not a major limitation due to the fact that training can be done offline and the trained model can then be deployed to the preferred device to be used for real-time operation. This is because the time required to process and classify a test signal using the trained model is 6.96 ms. There is also a possibility that during the process of searching for the optimal filter parameters, the search might get stuck with the local maximum and is not able to find the optimal solution. To alleviate this possibility, higher population size can be used. However, this will again result in higher computational time and a need for higher computational resources. CONCLUSIONS The proposed method has been able to successfully optimize the filter band parameters that accounts for its improved performance in comparison to the other state-of-the-art methods. OPTICAL+ achieved the lowest error rate of 30.41%, which is an improvement of 1.40% compared to the OPTICAL predictor and an improvement of 3.66% compared to the conventional wide-band CSP approach. On the other hand, OPTICAL+ also achieved the highest average sensitivity and specificity of 70.10% and 69.10%, respectively. This shows that our proposed predictor is able to correctly classify more positive and negative samples, which in turn has resulted in the decrease in the error rate. Furthermore, OPTICAL+ achieved the highest κ value of 0.398, an improvement of 6.24% compared to that of the OPTICAL predictor. To add on, the proposed OPTICAL+ predictor achieved the lowest error rate for 21 out of the 52 subjects. This shows that apart from performing well in terms of the error rate, specificity, sensitivity and κ value, OPTICAL+ is also a robust and reliable predictor. The best performance by other methods in terms of the number of subjects that obtained the lowest error rate was by I-DFBCSP method (10 out of 52 subjects). This shows that the proposed predictor is more reliable as it performed well for most of the subjects on a larger dataset consisting of 52 subjects. Therefore, OPTICAL+ can be used to potentially develop improved HCI systems using EEG signals. Moreover, it can also be useful for other applications requiring EEG signal classification, such as various sleep stage classification and seizure detection. Kumar et al. (2021), PeerJ Comput. Sci., DOI 10.7717/peerj-cs.375 15/20 http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.375 https://peerj.com/computer-science/ ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND DECLARATIONS Funding This research work was supported by the University Research Committee, Fiji National University, Fiji. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Grant Disclosures The following grant information was disclosed by the authors: University Research Committee, Fiji National University, Fiji. Competing Interests The authors declare that they have no competing interests. Author Contributions � Shiu Kumar conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, analyzed the data, performed the computation work, prepared figures and/or tables, authored or reviewed drafts of the paper, and approved the final draft. � Ronesh Sharma conceived and designed the experiments, authored or reviewed drafts of the paper, and approved the final draft. � Alok Sharma conceived and designed the experiments, authored or reviewed drafts of the paper, and approved the final draft. Data Availability The following information was supplied regarding data availability: Data is available at GigaScience: Cho H; Ahn M; Ahn S; Kwon M; Jun SC (2017): Supporting data for “EEG datasets for motor imagery brain computer interface” GigaScience Database. DOI 10.5524/100295 The database contains 52 Matlab files named s'#'.mat and it requires Matlab 2010a or a newer, preferably 64bit operating system. The source code is available at GitHub: https://github.com/ShiuKumar/OPTICAL_plus. Supplemental Information Supplemental information for this article can be found online at http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/ peerj-cs.375#supplemental-information. REFERENCES Abibullaev B, Zollanvari A. 2019. Learning discriminative spatiospectral features of erps for accurate brain-computer interfaces. IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics 23(5):2009–2020 DOI 10.1109/JBHI.2018.2883458. Ang KK, Chin ZY, Zhang H, Guan C. 2008. Filter bank common spatial pattern (FBCSP) in brain- computer interface. In: IEEE International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IEEE World Congress on Computational Intelligence). Hong Kong, 2390–2397. Kumar et al. (2021), PeerJ Comput. Sci., DOI 10.7717/peerj-cs.375 16/20 http://dx.doi.org/10.5524/100295 https://github.com/ShiuKumar/OPTICAL_plus http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.375#supplemental-information http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.375#supplemental-information http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/JBHI.2018.2883458 http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.375 https://peerj.com/computer-science/ Blankertz B, Sannelli C, Halder S, Hammer EM, Kübler A, Müller K-R, Curio G, Dickhaus T. 2010. Neurophysiological predictor of SMR-based BCI performance. Neuroimage 51(4):1303–1309 DOI 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.03.022. Borhani S, Kilmarx J, Saffo D, Ng L, Abiri R, Zhao X. 2019. Optimizing prediction model for a noninvasive brain-computer interface platform using channel selection, classification, and regression. IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics 23(6):2475–2482 DOI 10.1109/JBHI.2019.2892379. Butkevičiūtė E, Bikulčienė L, Sidekerskienė T, Blažauskas T, Maskeliūnas R, Damaševičius R, Wei W. 2019. Removal of movement artefact for mobile EEG analysis in sports exercises. IEEE Access 7:7206–7217 DOI 10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2890335. Cheng M, Lu Z, Wang H. 2017. Regularized common spatial patterns with subject-to-subject transfer of EEG signals. Cognitive Neurodynamics 11(2):173–181 DOI 10.1007/s11571-016-9417-x. Cho H, Ahn M, Ahn S, Kwon M, Jun SC. 2017. EEG datasets for motor imagery brain-computer interface. GigaScience 6(7):1–8 DOI 10.1093/gigascience/gix034. Chowdhury A, Raza H, Meena YK, Dutta A, Prasad G. 2019. An EEG-EMG correlation-based brain-computer interface for hand orthosis supported neuro-rehabilitation. Journal of Neuroscience Methods 312:1–11 DOI 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2018.11.010. Damaševičius R, Maskeliūnas R, Kazanavičius E, Woźniak M. 2018. Combining cryptography with EEG biometrics. Computational Intelligence and Neuroscience 2018(2):1867548 DOI 10.1155/2018/1867548. Gao Y, Gao B, Chen Q, Liu J, Zhang Y. 2020. Deep convolutional neural network-based epileptic electroencephalogram (EEG) signal classification. Frontiers in Neurology 11:150 DOI 10.3389/fneur.2020.00375. Gaur P, Pachori RB, Wang H, Prasad G. 2018. A multi-class EEG-based BCI classification using multivariate empirical mode decomposition based filtering and Riemannian geometry. Expert Systems with Applications 95:201–211 DOI 10.1016/j.eswa.2017.11.007. Ghaemi A, Rashedi E, Pourrahimi AM, Kamandar M, Rahdari F. 2017. Automatic channel selection in EEG signals for classification of left or right hand movement in Brain Computer Interfaces using improved binary gravitation search algorithm. Biomedical Signal Processing and Control 33:109–118 DOI 10.1016/j.bspc.2016.11.018. Jiao Y, Zhang Y, Chen X, Yin E, Jin J, Wang X, Cichocki A. 2019. Sparse group representation model for motor imagery EEG classification. IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics 23(2):631–641 DOI 10.1109/JBHI.2018.2832538. Krause B, Lu L, Murray I, Renals S. 2017. Multiplicative LSTM for sequence modelling. Available at https://arxiv.org/abs/1609.07959. Kumar S, Mamun K, Sharma A. 2017. CSP-TSM: optimizing the performance of Riemannian tangent space mapping using common spatial pattern for MI-BCI. Computers in Biology and Medicine 91:231–242 DOI 10.1016/j.compbiomed.2017.10.025. Kumar S, Sharma A. 2018. A new parameter tuning approach for enhanced motor imagery EEG signal classification. Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing 56(10):1861–1874 DOI 10.1007/s11517-018-1821-4. Kumar S, Sharma A, Tsunoda T. 2017. An improved discriminative filter bank selection approach for motor imagery EEG signal classification using mutual information. BMC Bioinformatics 18(S16):545 DOI 10.1186/s12859-017-1964-6. Kumar et al. (2021), PeerJ Comput. Sci., DOI 10.7717/peerj-cs.375 17/20 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.03.022 http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/JBHI.2019.2892379 http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2890335 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11571-016-9417-x http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/gigascience/gix034 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jneumeth.2018.11.010 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2018/1867548 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2020.00375 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2017.11.007 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bspc.2016.11.018 http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/JBHI.2018.2832538 https://arxiv.org/abs/1609.07959 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compbiomed.2017.10.025 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11517-018-1821-4 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12859-017-1964-6 http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.375 https://peerj.com/computer-science/ Kumar S, Sharma A, Tsunoda T. 2019a. Brain wave classification using long short-term memory network based OPTICAL predictor. Scientific Reports 9(1):9153 DOI 10.1038/s41598-019-45605-1. Kumar S, Sharma A, Tsunoda T. 2019b. Subject-specific-frequency-band for motor imagery eeg signal recognition based on common spatial spectral pattern. In: Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence: Sub-Series of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. 11671. Kumar S, Sharma R, Sharma A, Tsunoda T. 2016. Decimation filter with common spatial pattern and fishers discriminant analysis for motor imagery classification. In: 2016 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN). Vancouver, Canada, 2090–2095. Li S, Feng H. 2019. EEG signal classification method based on feature priority analysis and CNN. In: 2019 International Conference on Communications, Information System and Computer Engineering (CISCE). 403–406. Li Y, Pan J, Long J, Yu T, Wang F, Yu Z, Wu W. 2016. Multimodal BCIs: target detection, multidimensional control, and awareness evaluation in patients with disorder of consciousness. Proceedings of the IEEE 104(2):332–352 DOI 10.1109/JPROC.2015.2469106. Liu J, Wu G, Luo Y, Qiu S, Yang S, Li W, Bi Y. 2020. EEG-based emotion classification using a deep neural network and sparse autoencoder. Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience 14:265 DOI 10.3389/fnsys.2020.00043. Luo J, Feng Z, Zhang J, Lu N. 2016. Dynamic frequency feature selection based approach for classification of motor imageries. Computers in Biology and Medicine 75:45–53 DOI 10.1016/j.compbiomed.2016.03.004. Martisius I, Birvinskas D, Damasevicius R, Jusas V. 2013. EEG dataset reduction and classification using wave atom transform. In: Mladenov V, Koprinkova-Hristova P, Palm G, Villa AEP, Appollini B, Kasabov N, eds. Artificial Neural Networks and Machine Learning— ICANN 2013. Berlin: Springer, 208–215. MathWorks T. 2018. Long short-term memory networks. Available at https://au.mathworks.com/ help/deeplearning/ug/long-short-term-memory-networks.html (accessed 10 March 2020). Mingai L, Shuoda G, Jinfu Y, Yanjun S. 2016. A novel EEG feature extraction method based on OEMD and CSP algorithm. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems 30(5):1–13. Mullen T, Kothe C, Chi YM, Ojeda A, Kerth T, Makeig S, Cauwenberghs G, Jung T. 2013. Real-time modeling and 3D visualization of source dynamics and connectivity using wearable EEG. In: 35th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC). Piscataway: IEEE, 2184–2187. Mumtaz W, Ali SSA, Yasin MAM, Malik AS. 2018. A machine learning framework involving EEG-based functional connectivity to diagnose major depressive disorder (MDD). Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing 56(2):233–246 DOI 10.1007/s11517-017-1685-z. Neurostyle. 2017. NBETTER stroke rehabilitation system. Available at http://neuro-style.com/ nbetter-stroke-rehabilitation-system/ (accessed 3 March 2019). Novi Q, Cuntai G, Dat TH, Ping X. 2007. Sub-band common spatial pattern (SBCSP) for brain-computer interface. In: 3rd International IEEE/EMBS Conference on Neural Engineering. Piscataway: IEEE, 204–207. Peng G, Nourani M, Harvey J, Dave H. 2020. Feature selection using f-statistic values for EEG signal analysis. In: 2020 42nd Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine & Biology Society (EMBC). Piscataway: IEEE, 5963–5966. Poli R, Kennedy J, Blackwell T. 2007. Particle swarm optimization. Swarm Intelligence 1(1):33–57 DOI 10.1007/s11721-007-0002-0. Kumar et al. (2021), PeerJ Comput. Sci., DOI 10.7717/peerj-cs.375 18/20 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-45605-1 http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/JPROC.2015.2469106 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnsys.2020.00043 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compbiomed.2016.03.004 https://au.mathworks.com/help/deeplearning/ug/long-short-term-memory-networks.html https://au.mathworks.com/help/deeplearning/ug/long-short-term-memory-networks.html http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11517-017-1685-z http://neuro-style.com/nbetter-stroke-rehabilitation-system/ http://neuro-style.com/nbetter-stroke-rehabilitation-system/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11721-007-0002-0 http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.375 https://peerj.com/computer-science/ Radha M, Fonseca P, Moreau A, Ross M, Cerny A, Anderer P, Long X, Aarts RM. 2019. Sleep stage classification from heart-rate variability using long short-term memory neural networks. Scientific Reports 9(1):14149 DOI 10.1038/s41598-019-49703-y. Rajasekar P, Pushpalatha M. 2020. Huffman quantization approach for optimized EEG signal compression with transformation technique. Soft Computing 24(19):14545–14559 DOI 10.1007/s00500-020-04804-z. Ramoser H, Muller-Gerking J, Pfurtscheller G. 2000. Optimal spatial filtering of single trial EEG during imagined hand movement. IEEE Transactions on Rehabilitation Engineering 8(4):441–446 DOI 10.1109/86.895946. Sharma A, Vans E, Shigemizu D, Boroevich KA, Tsunoda T. 2019. DeepInsight: a methodology to transform a non-image data to an image for convolution neural network architecture. Scientific Reports 9(1):11399 DOI 10.1038/s41598-019-47765-6. Thomas KP, Cuntai G, Lau CT, Vinod AP, Keng KA. 2009. A new discriminative common spatial pattern method for motor imagery brain computer interfaces. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering 56(11):2730–2733 DOI 10.1109/TBME.2009.2026181. Türk Ö, Şeker M, Akpolat V, Özerdem MS. 2017. Classification of mental task EEG records using Hjorth parameters. In: 2017 25th Signal Processing and Communications Applications Conference (SIU). 1–4. Utsumi K, Takano K, Okahara Y, Komori T, Onodera O, Kansaku K. 2018. Operation of a P300-based brain-computer interface in patients with Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Scientific Reports 8(1):1753 DOI 10.1038/s41598-018-20125-6. Wang H, Zhang Y, Waytowich NR, Krusienski DJ, Zhou G, Jin J, Wang X, Cichocki A. 2016. Discriminative feature extraction via multivariate linear regression for SSVEP-Based BCI. IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering 24(5):532–541 DOI 10.1109/TNSRE.2016.2519350. Wang J, Feng Z, Lu N, Sun L, Luo J. 2018. An information fusion scheme based common spatial pattern method for classification of motor imagery tasks. Biomedical Signal Processing and Control 46:10–17 DOI 10.1016/j.bspc.2018.06.008. Wei Q, Wei Z. 2015. Binary particle swarm optimization for frequency band selection in motor imagery based brain-computer interfaces. Bio-Medical Materials and Engineering 26(s1):S1523–S1532 DOI 10.3233/BME-151451. Wodecki J, Michalak A, Zimroz R. 2018. Optimal filter design with progressive genetic algorithm for local damage detection in rolling bearings. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 102:102–116 DOI 10.1016/j.ymssp.2017.09.008. Wu H, Niu Y, Li F, Li Y, Fu B, Shi G, Dong M. 2019. A parallel multiscale filter bank convolutional neural networks for motor imagery EEG classification. Frontiers in Neuroscience 13:1 DOI 10.3389/fnins.2019.01275. Xing X, Wang Y, Pei W, Guo X, Liu Z, Wang F, Ming G, Zhao H, Gui Q, Chen H. 2018. A high-speed SSVEP-based BCI using dry EEG electrodes. Scientific Reports 8(1):14708 DOI 10.1038/s41598-018-32283-8. Xu B, Song A, Zhao G, Liu J, Xu G, Pan L, Yang R, Li H, Cui J. 2018. EEG-modulated robotic rehabilitation system for upper extremity. Biotechnology & Biotechnological Equipment 32(3):795–803 DOI 10.1080/13102818.2018.1437569. Xu Z, Yang X, Sun J, Liu P, Qin W. 2020. Sleep stage classification using time-frequency spectra from consecutive multi-time points. Frontiers in Neuroscience 14:442 DOI 10.3389/fnins.2020.00014. Kumar et al. (2021), PeerJ Comput. Sci., DOI 10.7717/peerj-cs.375 19/20 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-49703-y http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00500-020-04804-z http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/86.895946 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-47765-6 http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TBME.2009.2026181 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-20125-6 http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TNSRE.2016.2519350 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bspc.2018.06.008 http://dx.doi.org/10.3233/BME-151451 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ymssp.2017.09.008 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2019.01275 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-32283-8 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13102818.2018.1437569 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2020.00014 http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.375 https://peerj.com/computer-science/ Yang B, Li H, Wang Q, Zhang Y. 2016. Subject-based feature extraction by using fisher WPD-CSP in brain-computer interfaces. Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine 129:21–28 DOI 10.1016/j.cmpb.2016.02.020. Yang F, Zhao X, Jiang W, Gao P, Liu G. 2019. Multi-method fusion of cross-subject emotion recognition based on high-dimensional EEG features. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience 13:745 DOI 10.3389/fncom.2019.00053. Yin Z, Liu L, Chen J, Zhao B, Wang Y. 2020. Locally robust EEG feature selection for individual-independent emotion recognition. Expert Systems with Applications 162:113768 DOI 10.1016/j.eswa.2020.113768. Yuksel A, Olmez T. 2015. A neural network-based optimal spatial filter design method for motor imagery classification. PLOS ONE 10(5):e0125039 DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0125039. Yulita IN, Rosadi R, Purwani S, Suryani M. 2018. Multi-layer perceptron for sleep stage classification. Journal of Physics: Conference Series 1028:012212 DOI 10.1088/1742-6596/1028/1/012212. Zeng H, Dai G, Kong W, Chen F, Wang L. 2017. A novel nonlinear dynamic method for stroke rehabilitation effect evaluation using EEG. IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering 25(12):2488–2497 DOI 10.1109/TNSRE.2017.2744664. Zhang Y, Wang Y, Jin J, Wang X. 2017. Sparse bayesian learning for obtaining sparsity of eeg frequency bands based feature vectors in motor imagery classification. International Journal of Neural Systems 27(02):1650032 DOI 10.1142/S0129065716500325. Zhang Y, Wang Y, Zhou G, Jin J, Wang B, Wang X, Cichocki A. 2018. Multi-kernel extreme learning machine for EEG classification in brain-computer interfaces. Expert Systems with Applications 96:302–310 DOI 10.1016/j.eswa.2017.12.015. Zhang Y, Zhou G, Jin J, Wang X, Cichocki A. 2015. Optimizing spatial patterns with sparse filter bands for motor-imagery based brain-computer interface. Journal of Neuroscience Methods 255:85–91 DOI 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2015.08.004. Zhou D, Li X. 2020. Epilepsy EEG signal classification algorithm based on improved RBF. Frontiers in Neuroscience 14:606 DOI 10.3389/fnins.2020.00606. Zhou M, Tian C, Cao R, Wang B, Niu Y, Hu T, Guo H, Xiang J. 2018. Epileptic seizure detection based on EEG signals and CNN. Frontiers in Neuroinformatics 12:270 DOI 10.3389/fninf.2018.00095. Kumar et al. (2021), PeerJ Comput. Sci., DOI 10.7717/peerj-cs.375 20/20 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cmpb.2016.02.020 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fncom.2019.00053 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2020.113768 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0125039 http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1028/1/012212 http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TNSRE.2017.2744664 http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/S0129065716500325 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2017.12.015 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jneumeth.2015.08.004 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2020.00606 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fninf.2018.00095 http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.375 https://peerj.com/computer-science/ OPTICAL+: a frequency-based deep learning scheme for recognizing brain wave signals Introduction Materials and Methods Results and discussion Results Discussion Conclusions References << /ASCII85EncodePages false /AllowTransparency false /AutoPositionEPSFiles true /AutoRotatePages /None /Binding /Left /CalGrayProfile (Dot Gain 20%) /CalRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) /CalCMYKProfile (U.S. Web Coated \050SWOP\051 v2) /sRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) /CannotEmbedFontPolicy /Warning /CompatibilityLevel 1.4 /CompressObjects /Off /CompressPages true /ConvertImagesToIndexed true /PassThroughJPEGImages true /CreateJobTicket false /DefaultRenderingIntent /Default /DetectBlends true /DetectCurves 0.0000 /ColorConversionStrategy /LeaveColorUnchanged /DoThumbnails false /EmbedAllFonts true /EmbedOpenType false /ParseICCProfilesInComments true /EmbedJobOptions true /DSCReportingLevel 0 /EmitDSCWarnings false /EndPage -1 /ImageMemory 1048576 /LockDistillerParams false /MaxSubsetPct 100 /Optimize true /OPM 1 /ParseDSCComments true /ParseDSCCommentsForDocInfo true /PreserveCopyPage true /PreserveDICMYKValues true /PreserveEPSInfo true /PreserveFlatness true /PreserveHalftoneInfo false /PreserveOPIComments false /PreserveOverprintSettings true /StartPage 1 /SubsetFonts true /TransferFunctionInfo /Apply /UCRandBGInfo /Preserve /UsePrologue false /ColorSettingsFile (None) /AlwaysEmbed [ true ] /NeverEmbed [ true ] /AntiAliasColorImages false /CropColorImages true /ColorImageMinResolution 300 /ColorImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleColorImages false /ColorImageDownsampleType /Average /ColorImageResolution 300 /ColorImageDepth 8 /ColorImageMinDownsampleDepth 1 /ColorImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeColorImages true /ColorImageFilter /FlateEncode /AutoFilterColorImages false /ColorImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /ColorACSImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /ColorImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /JPEG2000ColorACSImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /JPEG2000ColorImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /AntiAliasGrayImages false /CropGrayImages true /GrayImageMinResolution 300 /GrayImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleGrayImages false /GrayImageDownsampleType /Average /GrayImageResolution 300 /GrayImageDepth 8 /GrayImageMinDownsampleDepth 2 /GrayImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeGrayImages true /GrayImageFilter /FlateEncode /AutoFilterGrayImages false /GrayImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /GrayACSImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /GrayImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /JPEG2000GrayACSImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /JPEG2000GrayImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /AntiAliasMonoImages false /CropMonoImages true /MonoImageMinResolution 1200 /MonoImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleMonoImages false /MonoImageDownsampleType /Average /MonoImageResolution 1200 /MonoImageDepth -1 /MonoImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeMonoImages true /MonoImageFilter /CCITTFaxEncode /MonoImageDict << /K -1 >> /AllowPSXObjects false /CheckCompliance [ /None ] /PDFX1aCheck false /PDFX3Check false /PDFXCompliantPDFOnly false /PDFXNoTrimBoxError true /PDFXTrimBoxToMediaBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXSetBleedBoxToMediaBox true /PDFXBleedBoxToTrimBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXOutputIntentProfile (None) /PDFXOutputConditionIdentifier () /PDFXOutputCondition () /PDFXRegistryName () /PDFXTrapped /False /CreateJDFFile false /Description << /CHS /CHT /DAN /DEU /ESP /FRA /ITA /JPN /KOR /NLD (Gebruik deze instellingen om Adobe PDF-documenten te maken voor kwaliteitsafdrukken op desktopprinters en proofers. De gemaakte PDF-documenten kunnen worden geopend met Acrobat en Adobe Reader 5.0 en hoger.) /NOR /PTB /SUO /SVE /ENU (Use these settings to create Adobe PDF documents for quality printing on desktop printers and proofers. Created PDF documents can be opened with Acrobat and Adobe Reader 5.0 and later.) >> /Namespace [ (Adobe) (Common) (1.0) ] /OtherNamespaces [ << /AsReaderSpreads false /CropImagesToFrames true /ErrorControl /WarnAndContinue /FlattenerIgnoreSpreadOverrides false /IncludeGuidesGrids false /IncludeNonPrinting false /IncludeSlug false /Namespace [ (Adobe) (InDesign) (4.0) ] /OmitPlacedBitmaps false /OmitPlacedEPS false /OmitPlacedPDF false /SimulateOverprint /Legacy >> << /AddBleedMarks false /AddColorBars false /AddCropMarks false /AddPageInfo false /AddRegMarks false /ConvertColors /NoConversion /DestinationProfileName () /DestinationProfileSelector /NA /Downsample16BitImages true /FlattenerPreset << /PresetSelector /MediumResolution >> /FormElements false /GenerateStructure true /IncludeBookmarks false /IncludeHyperlinks false /IncludeInteractive false /IncludeLayers false /IncludeProfiles true /MultimediaHandling /UseObjectSettings /Namespace [ (Adobe) (CreativeSuite) (2.0) ] /PDFXOutputIntentProfileSelector /NA /PreserveEditing true /UntaggedCMYKHandling /LeaveUntagged /UntaggedRGBHandling /LeaveUntagged /UseDocumentBleed false >> ] >> setdistillerparams << /HWResolution [2400 2400] /PageSize [612.000 792.000] >> setpagedevice