Signal, Image and Video Processing

, Volume 13, Issue 3, pp 483–490 | Cite as

A signal-to-image transformation approach for EEG and MEG signal classification

  • Bahar HatipogluEmail author
  • Cagatay Murat Yilmaz
  • Cemal Kose
Original Paper


The classification of magnetic signals has become one of the challenging research problems in brain computer interfaces (BCIs). Magnetic signals, as measured with electroencephalography (EEG) and magnetoencephalography (MEG), contain lots of additional information on the bioelectrical activity of the brain. In this paper, we propose a simple transformation method that utilises signal-to-image conversion. This conversion is a kind of finite amplitude frequency transformation based on the changing points of the signals. In other words, arbitrary time domain signals are converted to two-dimensional finite images, which are then used in the classification of the signals. In feature extraction, the Harris corner detector and scale-invariant feature transform are combined with the bag of visual words, and these features are then classified by using the k-nearest neighbour algorithm. To confirm the validity of the proposed method, experiments are conducted on the BCI Competition 2003 Datasets Ia and BCI Competition 2008 Dataset III. The classification accuracy of the proposed method is over 96.21% for Dataset Ia and 78.99% for Dataset III. It is apparent from the results that the EEG and MEG signals are quite successfully classified by employing the proposed method.


Brain–computer interface Electroencephalography Magnetoencephalography Motor imagery Transformation k-nearest neighbour 


  1. 1.
    Cichocki, A., Sanei, S.: EEG/MEG signal processing. Comput. Intell. Neurosci. (2007)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tibdewal, M.N., Fate, R.R., Mahadevappa, M., Ray, A.K., Malokar, M.: Classification of artifactual EEG signal and detection of multiple eye movement artifact zones using novel time-amplitude algorithm. Signal Image Video Process. 11(2), 333–340 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Besserve, M., Jerbi, K., Laurent, F., Baillet, S., Martinerie, J., Garnero, L.: Classification methods for ongoing EEG and MEG signals. Biol. Res. 40(4), 415–437 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kayikcioglu, T., Aydemir, O.: A polynomial fitting and k-NN based approach for improving classification of motor imagery BCI data. Pattern Recognit. Lett. 31(11), 1207–1215 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mensh, B.D., Werfel, J., Seung, H.S.: BCI competition 2003-data set Ia: combining gamma-band power with slow cortical potentials to improve single-trial classification of electroencephalographic signals. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 51(6), 1052–1056 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sun, S., Zhang, C.: Assessing features for electroencephalographic signal categorization. In: Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing (ICASSP), vol. 5, pp. v/417–v/420 (2005)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ting, W., Guo-zheng, Y., Bang-hua, Y., Hong, S.: EEG feature extraction based on wavelet packet decomposition for brain computer interface. Measurement 41(6), 618–625 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lederman, D., Tabrikian, J.: Classification of multichannel EEG patterns using parallel hidden Markov models. Med. Biol. Eng. Comput. 50(4), 319–328 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Duan, L., Bao, M., Cui, S., Qiao, Y., Miao, J.: Motor imagery EEG classification based on kernel hierarchical extreme learning machine. Cognit. Comput. 9(6), 758–765 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Goksu, H.: BCI oriented EEG analysis using log energy entropy of wavelet packets. Biomed. Signal Process. Control 44, 101–109 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Montazeri, N., Shamsollahi, M., Hajipour, S.: MEG based classification of wrist movement. In: Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, pp. 986–989 (2009)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hajipour Sardouie, S., Shamsollahi, M.B.: Selection of efficient features for discrimination of hand movements from MEG using a BCI competition IV data set. Front. Neurosci. 6, 42 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Li, J., Li, C., Cichocki, A.: Canonical polyadic decomposition with auxiliary information for brain–computer interface. IEEE J. Biomed. Health Inform. 21(1), 263–271 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Blankertz, B., Muller, K.-R., Curio, G., Vaughan, T.M., Schalk, G., Wolpaw, J.R., Schlogl, A., Neuper, C., Pfurtscheller, G., Hinterberger, T.: The BCI competition 2003: progress and perspectives in detection and discrimination of EEG single trials. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 51(6), 1044–1051 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    BCI Competition IV. Accessed 2 May 2017
  16. 16.
    Palshikar, G.: Simple algorithms for peak detection in time-series. In: Proceedings of 1st International Conference on Advanced Data Analysis, Business Analytics and Intelligence, pp. 1–13 (2009)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Yang, C., He, Z., Yu, W.: Comparison of public peak detection algorithms for MALDI mass spectrometry data analysis. BMC Bioinform. 10(1), 4 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tirilly, P., Claveau, V., Gros, P.: Language modeling for bag-of-visual words image categorization. In: Proceedings of the 2008 International Conference on Content-Based Image and Video Retrieval, pp. 249–258 (2008)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Alqasrawi, Y., Neagu, D., Cowling, P.I.: Fusing integrated visual vocabularies-based bag of visual words and weighted colour moments on spatial pyramid layout for natural scene image classification. Signal Image Video Process. 7(4), 759–775 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Peng, W., Hongling, X., Wenlin, L., Wenlong, S.: Harris scale invariant corner detection algorithm based on the significant region. Int. J. Signal Process. Image Process. Pattern Recognit. 9(3), 413–420 (2016)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Misra, I., Moorthi, S.M., Dhar, D., Ramakrishnan, R.: An automatic satellite image registration technique based on Harris corner detection and Random Sample Consensus (RANSAC) outlier rejection model. In: Recent Advances in Information Technology, pp. 68–73 (2012)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ledwich, L., Williams, S.: Reduced SIFT features for image retrieval and indoor localisation. In: Australian Conference on Robotics and Automation (2004)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hamid, N., Yahya, A., Ahmad, R.B., Al-Qershi, O.M.: A Comparison between using SIFT and SURF for characteristic region based image steganography. Int. J. Comput. Sci. Issues 9(3), 110–116 (2012)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Batista, G., Silva, D.F.: How k-nearest neighbor parameters affect its performance. In: Argentine Symposium on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 1–12 (2009)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Jiang, L., Cai, Z., Wang, D., Jiang, S.: Survey of improving k-nearest-neighbor for classification. In: Fuzzy Systems and Knowledge Discovery, pp. 679–683 (2007)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gunes, S., Polat, K., Yosunkaya, S.: Efficient sleep stage recognition system based on EEG signal using k-means clustering based feature weighting. Expert Syst. Appl. 37(12), 7922–7928 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bahar Hatipoglu
    • 1
    Email author
  • Cagatay Murat Yilmaz
    • 1
  • Cemal Kose
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer EngineeringKaradeniz Technical UniversityTrabzonTurkey

Personalised recommendations