Feature Reduction in Biosignal Processing

  • Martin Golz
  • David Sommer
Conference paper


Feature reduction is common in biosignal analysis, especially in case of quantitative EEG analysis. Mostly, summation in the spectral domain is applied to reduce the number of estimated power spectral density values, which gains between four and twelve band power values. Depending on the problem, on signals under analysis and on methods used for further processing it is an open question if such a strong decrease in the number of features is optimal. Modern Soft Computing methods offer the feasibility of processing a large amount of different features without considerable performance deteriorations. In this paper we apply such methods and compare empirically the case of no feature reduction to four variants of feature reduction. Our data set consist of more than 3,700 examples of microsleep events experienced by young adults in an overnight driving simulation study. More than 4,600 features were extracted from seven EEG and two EOG channels utilizing the modified periodogram method. Results showed that summation in many fixed bands, or in fewer, but freely optimized bands is more optimal than no reduction, or strong reduction to four bands commonly selected in EEG analysis.


Power Spectral Density Spectral Band Spectral Domain Feature Reduction Learn Vector Quantization 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    T. Akerstedt (2000). Consensus Statement: Fatigue and Accidents in Transport Operations. J Sleep Research 9, 395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    M. Golz, D. Sommer (2004). Automatic Recognition of Microsleep Events; Biomedizinische Technik 49, 332–333Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    D. Sommer, et al. (2005). Fusion of State Space and Frequency-Domain Features for Improved Microsleep Detection. Proc ICANN 2005; LNCS 3697, 753–759, Springer, Berlin.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    E. Niedermeyer, F. Lopes Da Silva (1999). Electroencephalography; 4th edition, Williams & Wilkins, Baltimore, MD.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    M. Golz, D. Sommer, M. Chen, U. Trutschel, D. Mandic (2007). Feature Fusion for the Detection of Microsleep Events. J. VLSI Signal Process Syst 49(2), 329–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Y. Bengio, et al. (2005). The Curse of Dimensionality for Local Kernel Machines. Technical Report 1258, Univ Montréal, Canada.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Martin Golz
    • 1
  • David Sommer
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of Applied Sciences Schmalkalden 98574 SchmalkaldenGermany

Personalised recommendations