A comparative study between a simplified Kalman filter and Sliding Window Averaging for single trial dynamical estimation of event-related potentials

The classical approach for extracting event-related potentials (ERPs) from the brain is ensemble averaging. For long latency ERPs this is not optimal, partly due to the time-delay in obtaining a response and partly because the latency and amplitude for the ERP components, like the P300, are variable and depend on cognitive function. This study compares the performance of a simplified Kalman filter with Sliding Window Averaging in tracking dynamical changes in single trial P300. The comparison is performed on simulated P300 data with added background noise consisting of both simulated and real background EEG in various input signal to noise ratios. While both methods can be applied to track dynamical changes, the simplified Kalman filter has an advantage over the Sliding Window Averaging, most notable in a better noise suppression when both are optimized for faster changing latency and amplitude in the P300 component and in a considerably higher robustness towards suboptimal settings. The latter is of great importance in a clinical setting where the optimal setting cannot be determined.

[1]  Salil H. Patel,et al.  Characterization of N200 and P300: Selected Studies of the Event-Related Potential , 2005, International journal of medical sciences.

[2]  J B Habraken,et al.  Identification of peak V in brainstem auditory evoked potentials with neural networks. , 1993, Computers in biology and medicine.

[3]  Wenqing Liu,et al.  Real-time data-reusing adaptive learning of a radial basis function network for tracking evoked potentials , 2006, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[4]  K. Misulis,et al.  Spehlmann's Evoked Potential Primer , 2001 .

[5]  David Neima,et al.  Evoked Potential Primer , 1985 .

[6]  G. Zouridakis,et al.  Comparison between ICA and wavelet-based denoising of single-trial evoked potentials , 2004, The 26th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society.

[7]  J. Polich Theoretical Overview of P3a and P3b , 2003 .

[8]  N V Thakor,et al.  Adaptive Fourier series modeling of time-varying evoked potentials: study of human somatosensory evoked response to etomidate anesthetic. , 1991, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[9]  Pablo Laguna,et al.  Bioelectrical Signal Processing in Cardiac and Neurological Applications , 2005 .

[10]  Erkki Oja,et al.  Independent component analysis: algorithms and applications , 2000, Neural Networks.

[11]  P. Prior,et al.  Monitoring cerebral function: Long-term recordings of cerebral electrical activity , 1979 .

[12]  Minfen Shen,et al.  Real-Time Detection of Signal in the Noise Based on the RBF Neural Network and Its Application , 2004, ISNN.

[13]  Vladimir Bostanov,et al.  BCI competition 2003-data sets Ib and IIb: feature extraction from event-related brain potentials with the continuous wavelet transform and the t-value scalogram , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[14]  Mika P. Tarvainen,et al.  Single-trial dynamical estimation of event-related potentials: a Kalman filter-based approach , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[15]  D. Linden The P300: Where in the Brain Is It Produced and What Does It Tell Us? , 2005, The Neuroscientist : a review journal bringing neurobiology, neurology and psychiatry.