Back

Data aggregation strategies for a P300 speller: decoding models, epoch averaging, cross-subject ensembles, and multi-channel models

Sidorov, L.; Makarova, A.; Maysuradze, A.; Lebedev, M.

2026-06-22 neuroscience
10.64898/2026.06.17.732982 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Accurate detection of P300 event-related potentials from electroencephalography (EEG) re-mains challenging for small numbers of trials due to low signal-to-noise ratios and substantial inter-subject variability. This study presents a systematic comparison of data aggregation strate-gies for improving P300 classification, evaluated on a 10-subject dataset using two convolutional neural network architectures (EEGNet and BaseCNN) and a support vector machine (SVM). We compared: (1) subject-specific and pooled general models for single trials; (2) epoch aver-aging with 5 and 10 stimuli repetitions; (3) multi-channel models where subjects corresponded to different input channels; (4) cross-subject averaging; (5) mixed (uncontrolled) averaging; (6) a combined approach with K trials per subject across all participants; and (7) time-shifted channels from extended single-trial epochs. Decoding performance was quantified using the Information Transfer Rate (ITR), computed for binary classification accuracy. We found that single-trial ITR was unpractical (0.15-0.64 bits/trial), whereas controlled aggregation improved the performance. The combined cross-subject approach with K = 3 trials per participant (30 channels) achieves the highest ITR with multi-channel EEGNet: 0.95 bits/aggregated decision in the no-aperture recordings and 0.97 bits/aggregated decision on Aperture data, approaching the theoretical binary-classification limit for the aggregated decision. Controlled cross-subject averaging consistently outperformed random trial mixing, and multi-channel architectures out-performed simple averaging when inter-subject structure was preserved. These findings con-tribute to improving P300 decoding and implementing multi-subject brain-computer interfaces (BCIs).

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Journal of Neural Engineering
221 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
34.0%
2
IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering
49 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
7.8%
3
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 23%
7.2%
4
Journal of Neuroscience Methods
122 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
7.2%
50% of probability mass above
5
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 17%
5.4%
6
NeuroImage
903 papers in training set
Top 3%
4.0%
7
Biomedical Signal Processing and Control
22 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.2%
8
Frontiers in Neuroscience
256 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.2%
9
Imaging Neuroscience
282 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.1%
10
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
77 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
2.1%
11
Clinical Neurophysiology
56 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.1%
12
Cerebral Cortex
396 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.1%
13
PLOS Computational Biology
1863 papers in training set
Top 17%
1.1%
14
Psychophysiology
77 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.1%
15
IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics
37 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.1%
16
eneuro
439 papers in training set
Top 7%
1.1%
17
IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering
40 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.1%
18
Sensors
43 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.0%
19
Journal of Neurophysiology
302 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.9%
20
Brain Topography
29 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.8%
21
Neuroinformatics
46 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.8%
22
European Journal of Neuroscience
189 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.6%
23
Brain Sciences
55 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%