Selection of EEG signal features for ERD/ERS
classification using genetic algorithms
Andrzej Majkowski1, Marcin Kołodziej1, Dariusz Zapała2, Paweł Tarnowski1, Piotr Francuz2, Remigiusz J. Rak1,
and Łukasz Oskwarek1,
1
Warsaw University of Technology, Institute of Theory of Electrical Engineering,
Measurement and Information Systems, ul. Koszykowa 75, 00-662 Warszawa, Poland
2
The John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin, Al. Racławickie 14, 20-950 Lublin, Poland,
Abstract— The article presents the use of genetic algorithm
(GA) to select and classify ERD/ERS patterns. One hundred
twenty eight channel EEG signal was used in the experiments. The
signal was recorded for 40 people, during the process of imagining
right and left hand movements. Feature extraction was performed
using frequency analysis (FFT) with the resolution of 1Hz. So the
features were spectral lines associated with particular electrodes.
The selection of features, calculated for all people, was made with
GA. The fitness function used in GA was EEG signal classification
error calculated using LDA classifier and 5-CV test. The average
accuracy of the classification for all people in 8-30Hz band was
0.85, while for the top 10 results 0.92.
Keywords—genetic algorithm; GA; EEG, ERD/ERS; feature
selection; classification; electroencephalograph; LORETA;
I. INTRODUCTION
Communication between man and machine throughout EEG
signals (brain-computer interface: BCI) is one of the biggest
challenges in signal processing. Such an interface can improve
the standard of living of people with severe motor disabilities.
Disable persons, who cannot move, can think about moving arm,
leg and in this way generate stable motor-related EEG signals,
so called desynchronization/synchronization - ERD/ERS.
The fundamental problem in all BCIs is the proper
“understanding” of EEG signals [1]. There are three, commonly
used, typical stages of EEG signal analysis: feature extraction,
feature selection and classification [2]. Many methods of feature
extraction are known. Very often frequency analysis is used. It
turns out that an interesting method of optimization that can be
used to select the best features is the genetic algorithm GA [3]–
[5], [6]. The purpose of this publication is to present the results
of the selection of EEG signal features obtained using GA,
calculated for a large number of people, for the classification of
ERD/ERS patterns.
II. MATERIALS
The experiment was carried out with 40 subjects, aged from
20 to 27 (M = 22.60; SD = 1.72; 20 women, one left-handed).
All the subjects were volunteers who gave their consent to take
part in the study and declared they were not taking medication
or other psychoactive substances on a permanent basis. The
Ethics Committee of the Institute of Psychology approved the
study.
Measurement of changes in the activity level of sensorimotor
EEG rhythms were carried out with GES300 system (Electrical
Geodesics, Inc. Eugene, OR, USA), comprising Net Amps 300
made with the use of a 128-channel cap with passive electrodes
HydroCel Geodesic Sensor Net (resistance<30kΩ). Data
sampling was defined at 500Hz. During EEG measurement, the
stimuli were displayed on a 17 inches LCD monitor screen, with
resolution of 1280×1024 pixels. The subjects were seated at a
distance of 60cm from the monitor.
The procedure of recording EEG signals, during the
movement imagery, was developed by modifying the paradigm
proposed by Hwang, Kwon and Im (2009) [7]. During the
recording, each user performed a total of 180 trials (90 trials for
left hand and 90 trials for right hand movement imagining). The
trials were randomly displayed for each participant.
III. METHODS
A. EEG Preprocessing and Feature Extraction
The Common Average Reference method (CAR) was used
to reduce interference and artifacts on each electrode [8]. The
Butterworth notch filter 48Hz-52Hz of 4-th order was used to
remove the 50Hz network frequency. No other pre-processing
methods were implemented. Any signals from selected
electrodes or fragments of signals containing artifacts were
removed.
Feature extraction was performed using Fast Fourier
Transform (FFT) for each "trial" individually. For this purpose,
each trial (4.5s) was divided into one-second windows with 50%
overlap. Then for each window the spectrum with a resolution
of 1Hz was calculated. Spectra calculated for individual
windows were averaged.
TABLE I. FEATURES USED IN GENETIC ALGORITHM
Frequency Number
band [Hz] of features
Comments
1- 40 5120 40 Spectrum lines ×128 electrodes
1-50 6400 50 Spectrum lines ×128 electrodes
1-100 12800 100 Spectrum lines ×128 electrodes
7-30 2944 23 Spectrum lines ×128 electrodes
The averaged spectrum represented features of the
individual trial. Ninety such trials were used for imagining the
right hand movement and ninety trials for imagining the left IV. RESULTS
hand movement. For genetic algorithms we used 1-40Hz, Table II shows the average classification results obtained for
1-50Hz, 1-100Hz, 7-30Hz spectral bands in which features all subjects using spectral lines, as features, corresponding to the
(spectral lines) were calculated. The features on which the bands: 1-40Hz, 1-50Hz, 1-100Hz, 7-30Hz. The average
genetic algorithm was trained are summarized in Table 1. Such classification accuracy for 10 participants with the best results
a large number of features makes it impossible to directly learn were presented in Table III. The average classification accuracy
the classifier, hence the need for their selection [9]. for the 10 participants with the worst results were presented in
B. Genetic Algorithm Table IV.
The genetic algorithm block diagram, used for feature TABLE II. AVERAGE CLASSIFICATION ACCURACY FOR ALL 40 PEOPLE
selection, is shown in Fig. 1.
Frequency band 1-40Hz 1-50Hz 1-100Hz 7-30Hz
Average accuracy 0.79 0.84 0.84 0.85
Standard deviation 0.085 0.054 0.049 0.050

TABLE III. AVERAGE CLASSIFICATION ACCURACY FOR 10 BEST RESULTS

Frequency band 1-40Hz 1-50Hz 1-100Hz 7-30Hz
Average accuracy 0.91 0.92 0.90 0.92
Standard deviation 0.055 0.039 0.047 0.041

TABLE IV. AVERAGE CLASSIFICATION ACCURACY FOR 10 WORST

RESULTS

Frequency band 1-40Hz 1-50Hz 1-100Hz 7-30Hz

Average accuracy 0.70 0.79 0.79 0.81
Standard deviation 0.021 0.011 0.013 0.022

In Figures 2, 3, 4 the most commonly chosen EEG features

for 70 runs of GA for one of the participants are presented. The
parameters of the GA for this case were: K=8 chromosomes
(desired features), population size N=190. The results indicate
that 8 to 12Hz spectral lines for electrodes located on the motor
cortex (C3 and C4 - numbers 32 and 104, respectively) were
Fig. 1. Block diagram of the genetic algorithm.
most commonly selected by the algorithm. Average
The first step of the algorithm (Initialize population) was the classification accuracy for all runs was 0.89, while the highest
creation of a startup population of N=190 individuals, containing classification accuracy was 0.96. This demonstrates the good
K=20 chromosomes, representing features (FFT spectrum lines). choice of the features for the ERD/ERS signal classification
Chromosomes for the input population were generated task.
randomly.
An important element of a genetic algorithm is to define the
fitness function (Evaluation), as a measure of selection quality
of the features. As a fitness function, the EEG signal
classification error was used. Classification was performed
using the linear discriminant analysis (LDA) and the 5-fold
cross-validation test (5-CV) [10].
In next step each individual was evaluated using "roulette
wheel” algorithm [11] and on this basis, the best N individuals
were selected for the next round (Selection). In this way a new
population of children was created.
For the created population, the stages of crossing and
mutation were performed (Crossover and Mutation) [12]. The
probability parameter for the crossing operation was 0.8 and for
the mutation 0.01. As a result of these operations, there was an
exchange of features in the originally generated population.
The selection, crossing and mutation stages were repeated Fig. 2. Number of feature choices (spectral line associated with an electrode)
290 times. As a result of GA, "best" features were obtained for for 70 GA runs.
the ERD/ERS classification.
Fig. 3. Number of feature choices associated with particular electrodes. Fig. 5. Distribution of t-values calculated for one user.

Fig. 4. Number of feature choices associated with particular frequencies.

Fig. 6. Sum of t-values determined for each frequency.

V. DISCUSSION
The obtained classification results are satisfactory and show
that genetic algorithm is very well suited to indicate the most
significant features for ERD/ERS recognition. For all
participants, the best classification accuracy (0.85) was obtained
for a limited band 7-30Hz. The best frequency subband foe
ERD/ERS classification is 8-12Hz (Fig. 2-4). Similar results
were obtained for other users.
For comparison, an experiment for another feature selection
method t-test [13] was also performed. Fig. 5 presents a
distribution of t-values calculated for one user. The sum of t-
values calculated for each frequency is shown in Fig. 6. In this
case, the most significant frequencies were in the 8-12Hz and
18-25Hz bands.
In order to directly compare the classification accuracies,
best K features were calculated using GA and t-test. The LDA
classifier was used for the t-test selection. The results of the
classification accuracies for both methods, depending on the Fig. 7. Classification accuracy when selecting features using GA and t-tets for
number of selected features, are presented in Fig. 7. different number of features.
 Differences of classification results for GA and t-test
selection methods results from the way these methods work (the
wrapper method vs. the filter method) [14]. Single run of the GA
selection method took 20.3 seconds (using Matlab and Paralel
Computing Toolbox - 4 workers, Intel Core i7-6700K 4GHz
CPU 16GB RAM).
In addition, the authors calculated the location of ERD/ERS
sources using the LORETA algorithm [15]. The differences in
brain activity for right and left hand movement imagining are
shown in Fig. 8.
Fig. 8. Differences in brain activity for right and left hand movement
imagining calculated for the frequency of 10.25Hz.
The designated areas indicate the greatest differences in the
areas of sensorimotor cortex. This is in line with the theory of
ERD/ERS potentials [16].
VI. CONCLUSIONS
Genetic algorithms are well suited to selection of best
features for ERD / ERS signal classification. Selected features
for the best individual can greatly increase the effectiveness of
BCI. During the experiments it turned out that selection made
using GA gives more accurate results than selection made with
a popular t-test. Selection using GA shows that the best features
are in the frequency range of 8-12Hz.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The research was partially funded by the National Science
Center, (grant no. 2011/03/N/HS6/02798).
REFERENCES
[1] J. R. Wolpaw et al., “Brain-computer interface technology: a review of
the first international meeting,” IEEE Trans Rehabil Eng, vol. 8, no. 2,
pp. 164–173, Jun. 2000.
[2] D. Hu, W. Li, and X. Chen, “Feature extraction of motor imagery EEG
signals based on wavelet packet decomposition,” in The 2011
IEEE/ICME International Conference on Complex Medical Engineering,
2011, pp. 694–697.
[3] E. Yom-Tov and G. F. Inbar, “Feature selection for the classification of
movements from single movement-related potentials,” IEEE
Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering, vol. 10,
no. 3, pp. 170–177, Sep. 2002.
[4] I. Rejer, “Genetic Algorithms in EEG Feature Selection for the
Classification of Movements of the Left and Right Hand,” in Proceedings
of the 8th International Conference on Computer Recognition Systems
CORES 2013, R. Burduk, K. Jackowski, M. Kurzynski, M. Wozniak, and
A. Zolnierek, Eds. Heidelberg: Springer International Publishing, 2013,
pp. 579–589.
[5] R. Corralejo, R. Hornero, and D. Álvarez, “Feature selection using a
genetic algorithm in a motor imagery-based Brain Computer Interface,”
in 2011 Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in
Medicine and Biology Society, 2011, pp. 7703–7706.
[6] M. Kołodziej, A. Majkowski, and R. Rak, “Implementation of genetic
algorithms to feature selection for the use of brain-computer interface,”
Przegląd Elektrotechniczny, vol. 87, pp. 71–73, 2011.
[7] H.-J. Hwang, K. Kwon, and C.-H. Im, “Neurofeedback-based motor
imagery training for brain-computer interface (BCI),” J. Neurosci.
Methods, vol. 179, no. 1, pp. 150–156, Apr. 2009.
[8] D. J. McFarland, L. M. McCane, S. V. David, and J. R. Wolpaw, “Spatial
filter selection for EEG-based communication,” Electroencephalography
Clinical Neurophysiology, vol. 103, no. 3, pp. 386–394, Sep. 1997.
[9] S. Osowski, Metody i narzędzia eksploracji danych. Legionowo: BTC,
2013.
[10] R. O. Duda, P. E. Hart, and D. G. Stork, Pattern Classification. Wiley-
Interscience, 2000.
[11] Z. Michalewicz, Genetic Algorithms + Data Structures = Evolution
Programs (3rd Ed.). London, UK, UK: Springer-Verlag, 1996.
[12] L. He, Y. Hu, Y. Li, and D. Li, “Channel selection by Rayleigh coefficient
maximization based genetic algorithm for classifying single-trial motor
imagery EEG,” Neurocomputing, vol. 121, pp. 423–433, Dec. 2013.
[13] I.-H. Lee, G. H. Lushington, and M. Visvanathan, “A filter-based feature
selection approach for identifying potential biomarkers for lung cancer,”
Journal of Clinical Bioinformatics, vol. 1, p. 11, 2011.
[14] G. Chandrashekar and F. Sahin, “A survey on feature selection methods,”
Computers & Electrical Engineering, vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 16–28, Jan. 2014.
[15] R. D. Pascual-Marqui, “Standardized low-resolution brain
electromagnetic tomography (sLORETA): technical details,” Methods
Find Exp Clin Pharmacol, vol. 24, pp. 5–12, 2002.
[16] G. Pfurtscheller, C. Brunner, A. Schlögl, and F. H. Lopes da Silva, “Mu
rhythm (de)synchronization and EEG single-trial classification of
different motor imagery tasks,” NeuroImage, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 153–159,
May 2006.