Uncertainty Quantification for Motor Imagery BCI -- Machine Learning vs. Deep Learning

Brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) turn brain signals into functionally useful output, but they are not always accurate. A good Machine Learning classifier should be able to indicate how confident it is about a given classification, by giving a probability for its classification. Standard classifiers for Motor Imagery BCIs do give such probabilities, but research on uncertainty quantification has been limited to Deep Learning. We compare the uncertainty quantification ability of established BCI classifiers using Common Spatial Patterns (CSP-LDA) and Riemannian Geometry (MDRM) to specialized methods in Deep Learning (Deep Ensembles and Direct Uncertainty Quantification) as well as standard Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs). We found that the overconfidence typically seen in Deep Learning is not a problem in CSP-LDA and MDRM. We found that MDRM is underconfident, which we solved by adding Temperature Scaling (MDRM-T). CSP-LDA and MDRM-T give the best uncertainty estimates, but Deep Ensembles and standard CNNs give the best classifications. We show that all models are able to separate between easy and difficult estimates, so that we can increase the accuracy of a Motor Imagery BCI by rejecting samples that are ambiguous.

How disentangled are your classification uncertainties?

Uncertainty Quantification in Machine Learning has progressed to predicting the source of uncertainty in a prediction: Uncertainty from stochasticity in the data (aleatoric), or uncertainty from limitations of the model (epistemic). Generally, each uncertainty is evaluated in isolation, but this obscures the fact that they are often not truly disentangled. This work proposes a set of experiments to evaluate disentanglement of aleatoric and epistemic uncertainty, and uses these methods to compare two competing formulations for disentanglement (the Information Theoretic approach, and the Gaussian Logits approach). The results suggest that the Information Theoretic approach gives better disentanglement, but that either predicted source of uncertainty is still largely contaminated by the other for both methods. We conclude that with the current methods for disentangling, aleatoric and epistemic uncertainty are not reliably separated, and we provide a clear set of experimental criteria that good uncertainty disentanglement should follow.

Transferring BCI models from calibration to control: Observing shifts in EEG features

Public Motor Imagery-based brain-computer interface (BCI) datasets are being used to develop increasingly good classifiers. However, they usually follow discrete paradigms where participants perform Motor Imagery at regularly timed intervals. It is often unclear what changes may happen in the EEG patterns when users attempt to perform a control task with such a BCI. This may lead to generalisation errors. We demonstrate a new paradigm containing a standard calibration session and a novel BCI control session based on EMG. This allows us to observe similarities in sensorimotor rhythms, and observe the additional preparation effects introduced by the control paradigm. In the Movement Related Cortical Potentials we found large differences between the calibration and control sessions. We demonstrate a CSP-based Machine Learning model trained on the calibration data that can make surprisingly good predictions on the BCI-controlled driving data.

Uncertainty Quantification for cross-subject Motor Imagery classification

Uncertainty Quantification aims to determine when the prediction from a Machine Learning model is likely to be wrong. Computer Vision research has explored methods for determining epistemic uncertainty (also known as model uncertainty), which should correspond with generalisation error. These methods theoretically allow to predict misclassifications due to inter-subject variability. We applied a variety of Uncertainty Quantification methods to predict misclassifications for a Motor Imagery Brain Computer Interface. Deep Ensembles performed best, both in terms of classification performance and cross-subject Uncertainty Quantification performance. However, we found that standard CNNs with Softmax output performed better than some of the more advanced methods.