# Overcomplete Independent Component Analysis via Linearly Constrained Minimum Variance Spatial Filtering

- 95 Downloads
- 3 Citations

## Abstract

Independent Component Analysis (ICA) designed for complete bases is used in a variety of applications with great success, despite the often questionable assumption of having *N* sensors and *M* sources with *N*≥*M*. In this article, we assume a source model with more sources than sensors (*M*>*N*), only *L*<*N* of which are assumed to have a non-Gaussian distribution. We argue that this is a realistic source model for a variety of applications, and prove that for ICA algorithms designed for complete bases (i.e., algorithms assuming *N*=*M*) based on mutual information the mixture coefficients of the *L* non-Gaussian sources can be reconstructed in spite of the overcomplete mixture model. Further, it is shown that the reconstructed temporal activity of non-Gaussian sources is arbitrarily mixed with Gaussian sources. To obtain estimates of the temporal activity of the non-Gaussian sources, we use the correctly reconstructed mixture coefficients in conjunction with linearly constrained minimum variance spatial filtering. This results in estimates of the non-Gaussian sources minimizing the variance of the interference of other sources. The approach is applied to the denoising of Event Related Fields recorded by MEG, and it is shown that it performs superiorly to ordinary ICA.

## Keywords

independent component analysis blind source separation overcomplete underdetermined EEG MEG denoising event related fields event related potentials beamforming## Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

## References

- 1.R. Boscolo, H. Pan, and V. P. Roychowdhury, “Beyond Comon’s Identifiability Theorem for Independent Component Analysis,”
*Artificial Neural Networks—ICANN 2002 Lecture Notes in Computer Science*, vol. 2415, 2002, pp. 1119–1124.Google Scholar - 2.A. W. Bowman and A. Azzalini,
*Applied Smoothing Techniques for Data Analysis*, Oxford University Press, 1997.Google Scholar - 3.J. F. Cardoso, “Blind Signal Separation: Statistical Principles,”
*Proc. IEEE*, vol. 86, 1998, pp. 2009–2025.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 4.J. F. Cardoso and A. Souloumiac, “Blind Beamforming for Non–Gaussian Signals,”
*IEE Proc. F*, vol. 140, 1993, pp. 362–370.Google Scholar - 5.P. Comon,“ Independent Component Analysis, A New Concept?,”
*Signal Process.*, vol. 36, 1994, pp. 287–314.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 6.A. Delorme and S. Makeig, “EEGLAB: An Open Source Toolbox for Analysis of Single-trial EEG Dynamics,”
*J. Neurosci. Methods*, vol. 134, 2004, pp. 9–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 7.A. Edelman, T. A. Arias, and S. T. Smith, “The Geometry of Algorithms with Orthogonality Constraints,”
*SIAM J. Matrix Anal. Appl.*, vol. 20, no. 2, 1998, pp. 303–353.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 8.J. Eriksson and V. Koivunen, “Identifiability and Separability of Linear ICA Models Revisited,” in
*4th International Symposium on Independent Component Analysis and Blind Signal Separation (ICA 2003)*, 2003, pp. 23–27.Google Scholar - 9.J. Gross and A. A. Ioannides, “Linear Transformations of Data Space in MEG,”
*Phys. Med. Biol.*, vol. 44, 1999, pp. 2081–2097.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 10.M. Grosse-Wentrup and M. Buss, “Subspace Identification through Blind Source Separation,”
*IEEE Signal Process. Lett.*, vol. 13, no. 2, 2006, pp. 100–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 11.C. J. James and O. J. Gibson, “Temporally Constrained ICA: An Application to Artifact Rejection in Electromagnetic Brain Signal Analysis,”
*IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng.*, vol. 50, 2003, pp. 1108–1116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 12.T. W. Lee, M. Girolami, and T. J. Sejnowski, “Independent Component Analysis Using an Extended Infomax Algorithm for Mixed Subgaussian and Supergaussian Sources,”
*Neural Comput.*, vol. 11, 1999, pp. 417–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 13.T. W. Lee, M. S. Lewicki, M. Girolami, and T. J. Sejnowski, “Blind Source Separation of More Sources Than Mixtures Using Overcomplete Representations,”
*IEEE Signal Process. Lett.*, vol. 6, 1999, pp. 87–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 14.S. Makeig, M. Westerfield, T. P. Jung, S. Enghoff, J. Townsend, E. Courchesne, and T. J. Sejnowski, “Dynamic Brain Sources of Visual Evoked Responses,”
*Science*, vol. 295, 2002, pp. 690–694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 15.M. J. McKeown, S. Makeig, G. G. Brown, T. P. Jung, S. S. Kindermann, A. J. Bell, and T. J. Sejnowski, “Analysis of fMRI Data by Blind Separation into Independent Spatial Components,”
*Hum. Brain Mapp.*, vol. 6, 1998, pp. 160–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 16.S. S. Nagarajan, H. T. Attias, and K. E. Hild II, and K. Sekihara, “A Graphical Model for Estimating Stimulus-evoked Brain Responses from Magnetoencephalography Data with Large Background Brain Activity,”
*NeuroImage*, vol. 30, 2006, pp. 400–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 17.L. C. Parra and C. V. Alvino, “Geometric Source Separation: Merging Convolutive Source Separation with Geometric Beamforming,”
*IEEE Trans. Speech Audio Process.*, vol. 10, 2002, pp. 352–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 18.H. Saruwatari, T. Kawamura, T. Nishikawa, A. Lee, and K. Shikano, “Blind Source Separation Based on a Fast-convergence Algorithm Combining ICA and Beamforming,”
*IEEE Trans. Audio, Speech and Language Processing*, vol. 14, 2006, pp. 666—678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 19.B. D. van Veen, W. van Drongelen, M. Yuchtman, and A. Suzuki, “Localization of Brain Electrical Activity via Linearly Constrained Minimum Variance Spatial Filtering,”
*IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng.*, vol. 44, 1997, pp. 867—880.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 20.L. Zhukov, D. Weinstein, and C. Johnson, “Independent Component Analysis for EEG Source Localization—An Algorithm that Reduces the Complexity of Localizing Multiple Neural Sources,”
*IEEE Eng. Med. Biol. Mag.*, vol. 19, 2000, pp. 87–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar