Abstract
A recent paper claims that a newly proposed method classifies EEG data recorded from subjects viewing ImageNet stimuli better than two prior methods. However, the analysis used to support that claim is based on confounded data. We repeat the analysis on a large new dataset that is free from that confound. Training and testing on aggregated supertrials derived by summing trials demonstrates that the two prior methods achieve statistically significant above-chance accuracy while the newly proposed method does not.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
