Weighted Brain Network Metrics for Decoding Action Intention Understanding Based on EEG

Background: Understanding the action intentions of others is important for social and human-robot interactions. Recently, many state-of-the-art approaches have been proposed for decoding action intention understanding. Although these methods have some advantages, it is still necessary to design other tools that can more efficiently classify the action intention understanding signals. New Method: Based on EEG, we first applied phase lag index (PLI) and weighted phase lag index (WPLI) to construct functional connectivity matrices in five frequency bands and 63 micro-time windows, then calculated nine graph metrics from these matrices and subsequently used the network metrics as features to classify different brain signals related to action intention understanding. Results: Compared with the single methods (PLI or WPLI), the combination method (PLI+WPLI) demonstrates some overwhelming victories. Most of the average classification accuracies exceed 70%, and some of them approach 80%. In statistical tests of brain network, many significantly different edges appear in the frontal, occipital, parietal, and temporal regions. Conclusions: Weighted brain networks can effectively retain data information. The integrated method proposed in this study is extremely effective for investigating action intention understanding. Both the mirror neuron and mentalizing systems participate as collaborators in the process of action intention understanding.

[1]  Jean Decety,et al.  SOCIAL NEUROSCIENCE AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY. , 2010, Social cognition.

[2]  M. Hallett,et al.  Identifying true brain interaction from EEG data using the imaginary part of coherency , 2004, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[3]  M. Arbib,et al.  Mirror neurons: Functions, mechanisms and models , 2013, Neuroscience Letters.

[4]  Sook-Lei Liew,et al.  Familiarity modulates mirror neuron and mentalizing regions during intention understanding , 2011, Human brain mapping.

[5]  V Latora,et al.  Efficient behavior of small-world networks. , 2001, Physical review letters.

[6]  C. Stam,et al.  Phase lag index: Assessment of functional connectivity from multi channel EEG and MEG with diminished bias from common sources , 2007, Human brain mapping.

[7]  Michael P. Kaschak,et al.  Perception of Auditory Motion Affects Language Processing , 2006, Cogn. Sci..

[8]  Gernot R Müller-Putz,et al.  Upper limb movements can be decoded from the time-domain of low-frequency EEG , 2017, PloS one.

[9]  M E J Newman,et al.  Fast algorithm for detecting community structure in networks. , 2003, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[10]  G. Rizzolatti,et al.  Neurophysiological mechanisms underlying the understanding and imitation of action , 2001, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[11]  K. Kaski,et al.  Intensity and coherence of motifs in weighted complex networks. , 2004, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[12]  Javier Gomez-Pilar,et al.  Quantification of Graph Complexity Based on the Edge Weight Distribution Balance: Application to Brain Networks , 2018, Int. J. Neural Syst..

[13]  Robert Oostenveld,et al.  An improved index of phase-synchronization for electrophysiological data in the presence of volume-conduction, noise and sample-size bias , 2011, NeuroImage.

[14]  G. Rizzolatti,et al.  The Dynamics of Sensorimotor Cortical Oscillations during the Observation of Hand Movements: An EEG Study , 2012, PloS one.

[15]  M. A. Casteel,et al.  The influence of motor simulations on language comprehension. , 2011, Acta psychologica.

[16]  Andreea Ioana Sburlea,et al.  EEG neural correlates of goal-directed movement intention , 2017, NeuroImage.

[17]  F. Varela,et al.  Measuring phase synchrony in brain signals , 1999, Human brain mapping.

[18]  Frank Van Overwalle,et al.  Understanding others' actions and goals by mirror and mentalizing systems: A meta-analysis , 2009, NeuroImage.

[19]  Francisco del Pozo,et al.  HERMES: Towards an Integrated Toolbox to Characterize Functional and Effective Brain Connectivity , 2013, Neuroinformatics.

[20]  Matteo Candidi,et al.  Commentary: Understanding intentions from actions: Direct perception, inference, and the roles of mirror and mentalizing systems , 2016, Front. Behav. Neurosci..

[21]  R. Saxe Uniquely human social cognition , 2006, Current Opinion in Neurobiology.

[22]  G. Rizzolatti,et al.  The mirror neuron system. , 2009, Archives of neurology.

[23]  Hui Liu,et al.  Action understanding based on a combination of one-versus-rest and one-versus-one multi-classification methods , 2017, 2017 10th International Congress on Image and Signal Processing, BioMedical Engineering and Informatics (CISP-BMEI).

[24]  Keiji Iramina,et al.  Temporal-Spatial Features of Intention Understanding Based on EEG-fNIRS Bimodal Measurement , 2017, IEEE Access.

[25]  C. Stam,et al.  Synchronization likelihood: an unbiased measure of generalized synchronization in multivariate data sets , 2002 .

[26]  Marcia A. Bockbrader,et al.  Brain Computer Interfaces in Rehabilitation Medicine , 2018, PM & R : the journal of injury, function, and rehabilitation.

[27]  Olaf Sporns,et al.  Complex network measures of brain connectivity: Uses and interpretations , 2010, NeuroImage.

[28]  G. Csibra,et al.  Motor activation during action perception depends on action interpretation , 2017, Neuropsychologia.

[29]  Amanda L. Woodward,et al.  Social Cognition and Social Responsiveness in 10-month-old Infants , 2007 .

[30]  Pedro J. García-Laencina,et al.  Efficient feature selection and linear discrimination of EEG signals , 2013, Neurocomputing.

[31]  Hojjat Adeli,et al.  Complexity of weighted graph: A new technique to investigate structural complexity of brain activities with applications to aging and autism , 2017, Neuroscience Letters.

[32]  Schreiber,et al.  Measuring information transfer , 2000, Physical review letters.

[33]  R. Hari Action-perception connection and the cortical mu rhythm. , 2006, Progress in brain research.

[34]  M. Brass,et al.  Investigating Action Understanding: Inferential Processes versus Action Simulation , 2007, Current Biology.

[35]  D. S. Guru,et al.  Features Fusion for Classification of Logos , 2016, ArXiv.

[36]  K. Gurney,et al.  Network ‘Small-World-Ness’: A Quantitative Method for Determining Canonical Network Equivalence , 2008, PloS one.

[37]  Evangelia Pippa,et al.  Data fusion for paroxysmal events’ classification from EEG , 2017, Journal of Neuroscience Methods.

[38]  Jens Christian Claussen,et al.  Offdiagonal complexity: A computationally quick complexity measure for graphs and networks , 2004, q-bio/0410024.

[39]  Michael P. Kaschak,et al.  Perception of motion affects language processing , 2005, Cognition.

[40]  Scott T. Grafton,et al.  Understanding Actions of Others: The Electrodynamics of the Left and Right Hemispheres. A High-Density EEG Neuroimaging Study , 2010, PloS one.

[41]  Nadine Girard,et al.  Brain network connectivity associated with anticipatory postural control in children and adults , 2018, Cortex.

[42]  G. Dong,et al.  Event-related potential measures of the intending process: Time course and related ERP components , 2010, Behavioral and Brain Functions.

[43]  M. Brass,et al.  The influence of action observation on action execution: Dissociating the contribution of action on perception, perception on action, and resolving conflict , 2017, Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience.

[44]  Antonia F. de C. Hamilton,et al.  Responses to irrational actions in action observation and mentalising networks of the human brain , 2014, NeuroImage.

[45]  Haixian Wang,et al.  Spatiotemporal Phase Synchronization in Adaptive Reconfiguration from Action Observation Network to Mentalizing Network for Understanding Other’s Action Intention , 2018, Brain Topography.

[46]  Arnaud Delorme,et al.  EEGLAB: an open source toolbox for analysis of single-trial EEG dynamics including independent component analysis , 2004, Journal of Neuroscience Methods.

[47]  T. Jacobsen,et al.  On the Role of Mentalizing Processes in Aesthetic Appreciation: An ERP Study , 2015, Front. Hum. Neurosci..

[48]  S. Cacioppo,et al.  Predicting Intentions of a Familiar Significant Other Beyond the Mirror Neuron System , 2017, Front. Behav. Neurosci..

[49]  Tianyi Zhou,et al.  EEG-based multi-feature fusion assessment for autism , 2018, Journal of Clinical Neuroscience.

[50]  Caroline Catmur,et al.  Understanding intentions from actions: Direct perception, inference, and the roles of mirror and mentalizing systems , 2015, Consciousness and Cognition.

[51]  Vince D. Calhoun,et al.  Progress in EEG: Multi-subject Decomposition and Other Advanced Signal Processing Approaches , 2017, Brain Topography.

[52]  Randal S. Olson,et al.  Relief-Based Feature Selection: Introduction and Review , 2017, J. Biomed. Informatics.

[53]  Lauren E. Libero,et al.  The role of mirroring and mentalizing networks in mediating action intentions in autism , 2014, Molecular Autism.

[54]  Thomas Wilhelm,et al.  What is a complex graph , 2008 .

[55]  Umberto Castiello,et al.  Social grasping: From mirroring to mentalizing , 2012, NeuroImage.

[56]  J. Decety,et al.  From the perception of action to the understanding of intention , 2001, Nature reviews. Neuroscience.

[57]  Keith J Holyoak,et al.  An fMRI study of causal judgments , 2005, The European journal of neuroscience.

[58]  A. Goldman,et al.  Mirror neurons and the simulation theory of mind-reading , 1998, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[59]  Masaki Isoda,et al.  Understanding intentional actions from observers’ viewpoints: A social neuroscience perspective , 2016, Neuroscience Research.

[60]  A. Vespignani,et al.  The architecture of complex weighted networks. , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[61]  Leonardo Fogassi,et al.  Neurophysiological bases underlying the organization of intentional actions and the understanding of others’ intention , 2013, Consciousness and Cognition.

[62]  Marco La Cascia,et al.  Hankelet-based action classification for motor intention recognition , 2017, Robotics Auton. Syst..

[63]  G. Rizzolatti,et al.  Parietal Lobe: From Action Organization to Intention Understanding , 2005, Science.

[64]  Luiz A. Baccalá,et al.  Partial directed coherence: a new concept in neural structure determination , 2001, Biological Cybernetics.

[65]  Qing Yang,et al.  Classification of intention understanding using EEG-NIRS bimodal system , 2015, 2015 12th International Computer Conference on Wavelet Active Media Technology and Information Processing (ICCWAMTIP).

[66]  Nick E. Barraclough,et al.  Timing of mirror system activation when inferring the intentions of others , 2018, Brain Research.

[67]  Roel M. Willems,et al.  Complementary Systems for Understanding Action Intentions , 2008, Current Biology.

[68]  Hanneke E. M. den Ouden,et al.  Thinking about intentions , 2005, NeuroImage.

[69]  F. Vecchio,et al.  Connectome: Graph theory application in functional brain network architecture , 2017, Clinical neurophysiology practice.

[70]  Jessica K. Hodgins,et al.  Exploring the neural correlates of goal-directed action and intention understanding , 2011, NeuroImage.

[71]  Beatriz de la Iglesia,et al.  Survey on Feature Selection , 2015, ArXiv.

[72]  C. Frith,et al.  Meeting of minds: the medial frontal cortex and social cognition , 2006, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[73]  J R Wolpaw,et al.  EEG-Based Brain-Computer Interfaces. , 2017, Current opinion in biomedical engineering.

[74]  Duncan J. Watts,et al.  Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks , 1998, Nature.

[75]  C. Frith,et al.  Action Observation: Inferring Intentions without Mirror Neurons , 2008, Current Biology.

[76]  Naznin Virji-Babul,et al.  Spatial‐temporal dynamics of cortical activity underlying reaching and grasping , 2009, Human brain mapping.

[77]  David Phillips,et al.  Graph theoretic analysis of structural connectivity across the spectrum of Alzheimer's disease: The importance of graph creation methods , 2015, NeuroImage: Clinical.

[78]  P. Enticott,et al.  Investigating Mirror System (MS) Activity in Adults with ASD When Inferring Others’ Intentions Using Both TMS and EEG , 2018, Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders.