Figure 8 displays sample EEG and acceleration data from the IMUs for a 16 sec time window recorded during interaction between the subject and the experimenter. EEG data was re-sampled at 100 Hz and then band-pass filtered [1-40 Hz] using a 3rd order, zero-phase Butterworth filter. Channels with high impedance values (Z > 60 kΩ), and peripheral channels, were discarded 12,15. The IMUs recorded nine signals at 128 Hz: magnetic flux, angular velocity, and linear acceleration in the three Cartesian axes. Here we show the magnitude of the gravity-compensated (GC) acceleration. The effect of acceleration due to gravity was compensated by applying a Kalman filter to predict the IMU orientation in a global frame 16. Data was segmented by visual inspection of the video recordings (Step 7.1). Vertical solid lines indicate the start of a behavior of interest, as dotted vertical lines represent the ending of the event.
Influence of motion artifacts is present in the EEG data shown in Figure 8 around 709s. The unconstrained approach to data collection in this experimental protocol makes the EEG data susceptible to eye blinks, eye movements, motion and electromyographic artifacts. The data was preprocessed by using a 3rd order zero-phase Butterworth band-pass filter to constrain it to the delta-band (1-4Hz), and standardized by subtracting the mean and dividing by the standard deviation. High-amplitude artifacts were removed automatically using the Artifact Subspace Removal (ASR) method 17. Additionally, peripheral channels are excluded from the data analysis in an effort to minimize myoelectric artifact contamination. Frontalis and temporalis muscle contractions merge with EEG signal most prominently at peripheral locations: Frontalis contraction shows up in anterior locations, and temporalis contraction shows up in lateral frontal and temporal locations 15.
To inspect the nature of the data collected with this protocol, EEG data histograms were plotted in Figure 9. In Figure 9A, it describes the data distribution of the standardized signal from three spatially representative electrodes. The EEG data shows a multimodal distribution for the analyzed behaviors. In Figure 9B the kurtosis values are presented as bar graphs for easier visual inspection of the data.
Classification was performed by extracting time-based lags of each EEG channel, reducing dimensionality while preserving the local scatter of each class (Local Fisher’s discriminant analysis (LFDA)) 18, and training/testing a model of the reduced set of features (Gaussian Mixture Models (GMMs)) 19. Training/testing samples were randomly sampled over 20 iterations (i.e., cross-validation) to prevent any over-fitting.Training/testing sample size varies given the number of rejected channels (i.e., impedance greater than 60 kHz), length of experiment session, and number of trials and behaviors expressed. However, the number of training and testing samples used for each class (behavior) correspond to 50% of the least populated class. As an example, the testing set size of each class is N = 1,069 samples for the infant data shown in Figure 10. All pre-processing and classification steps were computed under the MATLAB programming environment.
Figure 11 depicts the whole procedure for EEG source estimation performed in this study in a step-by-step manner. More details about each step is also summarized in section 8.
Figure 12 shows results of event related (de) synchronization (ERD / ERS) in the mu rhythm (5-9 Hz) and the dipole sources during the “Reach-Offer” task. ERS and ERD was calculated as the percentage of a decrease or increase in a frequency-band power which occurs during event (reach and offer task) interval as compared to the reference interval (a segment taken prior to the event). This figure also shows gravity-compensated magnitude acceleration obtained during the task from both wrists of the infant and the actor. For a dipole analysis the EEG signals were decomposed using independent component analysis (ICA) to eliminate background noise. The source estimation was performed in mu rhythm after ICA preprocessing via a fixed MUSIC algorithm 5. As expected, the sources were localized over the right primary motor area while the subject was using his left hand to grasp the object.
| Product Name | Company | Quantity |
| BrainAmp Amplifier | Brain Products, Gmbh | 2 |
| actiCAP EEG cap- 64 electrodes* | Brain Products, Gmbh | 10 |
| actiCAP Control Box | Brain Products, Gmbh | 1 |
| Brain Vision Recorder software | Brain Products, Gmbh | 1 |
| actiCAP Control Box software | Brain Products, Gmbh | 1 |
| CapTrak | Brain Products, Gmbh | 1 |
| CapTrak software | Brain Products, Gmbh | 1 |
| Opal movement monitor | APDM, Inc | 6 |
| Opal docking station | APDM, Inc | 6 |
| Opal wireless access point | APDM, Inc | 1 |
| Motion Studio software | APDM, Inc | 1 |
| Trigger box | Custom | 1 |
| Video camera | HC-W850M, Panasonic Co. | 1 |
| *The EEG caps come in the following head circumference sizes for infants: 42, 44, 46, 48, 50 cm. For this protocol, a stock of 2 caps of each size is recommended. |
Table 1 Equipment.

Figure 1. Flow diagrams. (A) Flow diagram of the experiment setup. (B) Flow diagram of the data collection session. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 2. Subject setup and ready for data collection. (A) Frontal view of subject wearing the EEG cap, and four IMUs. (B) Topographic representation of the 64 channel EEG cap using the 10-20 standard electrode positioning system. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 3. Data collection equipment and the testing room. (A) Data collection equipment setup: EEG control box (1), EEG cap (2), trigger (3), wireless IMU data receiver (4), EEG amplifiers (5), toy box (6), trigger push-button (7), data acquisition laptops (8), IMUs docking station (9). (B) Close-up of EEG cap, active electrodes and control box. (C) Close-up of IMUs and wireless receiver, trigger push-button, EEG amplifiers, and data collection laptops. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 4. Schematic representation of experimental setting. EEG control box holder (10). Subject’s guardian sits on chair (11), experimenter sits on chair (14) and the person monitoring the data sits on chair (17). The rest of the experimental setup is shown: Interaction tabletop (12), trigger (13), toy box (15), data acquisition table (16), video camera placement (18). Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 5. Screenshot of the EEG control software. The arrows point to key icons in the software described in step 6.1 and 6.8. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 6. Screenshot of EEG recording software. The arrows point to key icons in the software described in step 6.2 and 6.3. A section of the live-streaming raw data is shown. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 7. Screenshot of the IMUs software. The red boxes highlight the key icons in the software described in step 6.4. (A) Main command window. (B) Configuration window. (C) Recording window. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 8. Sample data from a representative experimental session. (A) EEG and acceleration data are shown, both band-pass filtered [1-40Hz]. EEG electrodes with low impedance (Z < 60 kΩ) throughout the session are displayed. Solid vertical lines indicate behavior onset. (B) Still frame representations of the infant engaged in the behaviors analyzed: Observe, Reach-grasp, Reach-offer, Imitate, Explore, Rest. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 9. Sample histograms of EEG amplitude for six behaviors identified. A) The data shown corresponds to the raw data from three electrodes (CP2, FC5, POz) recorded in a session with a 20-month old infant. The histograms are scaled to the highest number of occurrences and the kurtosis of each histogram is shown on the right of each plot. Notice the multimodal distribution for most of the behaviors. B) Kurtosis of sample data for each behavior. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 10. EEG predicts behavioral actions in freely behaving infants 12. A sample confusion matrix for the classification accuracy for a 20 month old infant is shown. The overall decoding accuracy is displayed on the lower-right corner. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 11. Source Localization. Steps required for an infant dipole source localization using an anatomical MRI and a functional EEG data. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 12. Reach-offer task analysis profile.A) Snapshots of an infant performing the “Reach-Offer” task. B) Mean Global Field Power of EEG in Mu band (5-9 Hz), the limb movement trajectories of the infant and the actor; the grand averaged event related spectral perturbation from all channels. C) Localized dipole sources for two events of “Movement onset” and “Movement Completion”. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.