Arşiv logosu
  • Türkçe
  • English
  • Giriş
    Yeni kullanıcı mısınız? Kayıt için tıklayın. Şifrenizi mi unuttunuz?
Arşiv logosu
  • Koleksiyonlar
  • Sistem İçeriği
  • Analiz
  • Talep/Soru
  • Türkçe
  • English
  • Giriş
    Yeni kullanıcı mısınız? Kayıt için tıklayın. Şifrenizi mi unuttunuz?
  1. Ana Sayfa
  2. Yazara Göre Listele

Yazar "Mohamed, Ahmed M. A." seçeneğine göre listele

Listeleniyor 1 - 1 / 1
Sayfa Başına Sonuç
Sıralama seçenekleri
  • Yükleniyor...
    Küçük Resim
    Öğe
    Classification of resting-state status based on sample entropy and power spectrum of electroencephalography (EEG)
    (Hindawi Ltd, 2020) Mohamed, Ahmed M. A.; Uçan, Osman Nuri; Bayat, Oğuz; Duru, Adil Deniz
    An electroencephalogram (EEG) is a significant source of diagnosing brain issues. It is also a mediator between the external world and the brain, especially in the case of any mental illness; however, it has been widely used to monitor the dynamics of the brain in healthy subjects. This paper discusses the resting state of the brain with eyes open (EO) and eyes closed (EC) by using sixteen channels by the use of conventional frequency bands and entropy of the EEG signal. The Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) and sample entropy (SE) of each sensor are computed as methods of feature extraction. Six classifiers, including logistic regression (LR), K-Nearest Neighbors (KNN), linear discriminant (LD), decision tree (DT), support vector machine (SVM), and Gaussian Naive Bayes (GNB) are used to discriminate the resting states of the brain based on the extracted features. EEG data were epoched with one-second-length windows, and they were used to compute the features to classify EO and EC conditions. Results showed that the LR and SVM classifiers had the highest average classification accuracy (97%). Accuracies of LD, KNN, and DT were 95%, 93%, and 92%, respectively. GNB gained the least accuracy (86%) when conventional frequency bands were used. On the other hand, when SE was used, the average accuracies of SVM, LD, LR, GNB, KNN, and DT algorithms were 92% 90%, 89%, 89%, 86%, and 86%, respectively.

| Altınbaş Üniversitesi | Kütüphane | Açık Erişim Politikası | Rehber | OAI-PMH |

Bu site Creative Commons Alıntı-Gayri Ticari-Türetilemez 4.0 Uluslararası Lisansı ile korunmaktadır.


Altınbaş Üniversitesi, İstanbul, TÜRKİYE
İçerikte herhangi bir hata görürseniz lütfen bize bildirin

DSpace 7.6.1, Powered by İdeal DSpace

DSpace yazılımı telif hakkı © 2002-2025 LYRASIS

  • Çerez Ayarları
  • Gizlilik Politikası
  • Son Kullanıcı Sözleşmesi
  • Geri Bildirim