The Performance of LVQ Based Automatic Relevance Determination Applied to Spontaneous Biosignals

  • Martin Golz
  • David Sommer
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4253)


The issue of Automatic Relevance Determination (ARD) has attracted attention over the last decade for the sake of efficiency and accuracy of classifiers, and also to extract knowledge from discriminant functions adapted to a given data set. Based on Learning Vector Quantization (LVQ), we recently proposed an approach to ARD utilizing genetic algorithms. Another approach is the Generalized Relevance LVQ which has been shown to outperform other algorithms of the LVQ family. In the following we present a unique description of a number of LVQ algorithms and compare them concerning their classification accuracy and their efficacy. For this purpose a real world data set consisting of spontaneous EEG and EOG during overnight-driving is employed to detect so-called microsleep events. Results show that relevance learning can improve classification accuracies, but do not reach the performance of Support Vector Machines. The computational costs for the best performing classifiers are exceptionally high and exceed basic LVQ1 by a factor of 104.


Automatic Relevance Determination Learning Vector Quantization Support Vector Machines Electroencephalogram 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Sommer, D., Chen, M., Golz, M., Trutschel, U., Mandic, D.P.: Fusion of State Space and Frequency- Domain Features for Improved Microsleep Detection. In: Duch, W., Kacprzyk, J., Oja, E., Zadrożny, S. (eds.) ICANN 2005. LNCS, vol. 3697, pp. 753–759. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bengio, Y., Delalleau, O., Le Roux, N.: The Curse of Dimensionality for Local Kernel Machines. Techn. Rep. 1258, Université de Montréal (2005)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    MacKay, D.J.C.: Probable Networks and Plausible Predictions - a Review of Practical Bayesian Methods for Supervised Neural Networks. Network: Computation in Neural Systems 6, 469–505 (1995)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Neal, R.M.: Bayesian Learning for Neural Networks. PhD thesis, University of Toronto, Canada, LNS 118. Springer, Berlin (1996)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kohonen, T.: Self-Organizing Maps, 3rd edn. Springer, Berlin (2001)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pregenzer, M., Flotzinger, D., Pfurtscheller, G.: Distinction Sensitive Learning Vector Quantization - A New Noise-Insensitive Classification Method. In: Proc. Int. Conf. Neural Networks (ICNN 1994), Orlando, pp. 2890–2894 (1994)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bojer, T., et al.: Relevance Determination in Learning Vector Quantization. In: Verleysen, M. (ed.) Europ. Symp. Artif. Neural Netw., D-facto public, pp. 271–276 (2001)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hammer, B., Villmann, T.: Generalized Relevance Learning Vector Quantization. Neural Networks 15(8-9), 1059–1068 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sato, A.S., Yamada, K.: Generalized Learning Vector Quantization. In: Adv. Neural Inform. Process. Systems, vol. 8, pp. 423–429. MIT Press, Cambridge (1996)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sommer, D., Golz, M.: A Comparison of Validation Methods for Learning Vector Quantization and for Support Vector Machines on Two Biomedical Data Sets. In: Spiliopoulou, M., et al. (eds.) From Data and Information Analysis to Knowledge Engineering, pp. 150–157. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Martin Golz
    • 1
  • David Sommer
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Applied Sciences SchmalkaldenSchmalkaldenGermany

Personalised recommendations