Search

© 2019 IEEE. Electroencephalogram (EEG) signals are one of the most widely used noninvasive signals in brain-computer interfaces. Large dimensional EEG recordings suffer from poor signal-to-noise ratio. These signals are very much prone to artifacts and noise, so sufficient preprocessing is done on raw EEG signals before using them for classification or regression. Properly selected spatial filters enhance the signal quality and subsequently improve the rate and accuracy of classifiers, but their applicability to solve regression problems is quite an unexplored objective. This paper extends common spatial patterns (CSP) to EEG state space using fuzzy time delay and thereby proposes a novel approach for spatial filtering. The approach also employs a novel fuzzy information theoretic framework for filter selection. Experimental performance on EEG-based reaction time (RT) prediction from a lane-keeping task data from 12 subjects demonstrated that the proposed spatial filters can significantly increase the EEG signal quality. A comparison based on root-mean-squared error (RMSE), mean absolute percentage error (MAPE), and correlation to true responses is made for all the subjects. In comparison to the baseline fuzzy CSP regression one versus rest, the proposed Fuzzy Time-delay Common Spatio-Spectral filters reduced the RMSE on an average by 9.94%, increased the correlation to true RT on an average by 7.38%, and reduced the MAPE by 7.09%.

Evaluating the response of the land carbon sink to the anomalies in temperature and drought imposed by El Niño events provides insights into the present-day carbon cycle and its climate-driven variability. It is also a necessary step to build confidence in terrestrial ecosystems models' response to the warming and drying stresses expected in the future over many continents, and particularly in the tropics. Here we present an in-depth analysis of the response of the terrestrial carbon cycle to the 2015/2016 El Niño that imposed extreme warming and dry conditions in the tropics and other sensitive regions. First, we provide a synthesis of the spatio-temporal evolution of anomalies in net land–atmosphere CO2 fluxes estimated by two in situ measurements based on atmospheric inversions and 16 land-surface models (LSMs) from TRENDYv6. Simulated changes in ecosystem productivity, decomposition rates and fire emissions are also investigated. Inversions and LSMs generally agree on the decrease and subsequent recovery of the land sink in response to the onset, peak and demise of El Niño conditions and point to the decreased strength of the land carbon sink: by 0.4–0.7 PgC yr−1 (inversions) and by 1.0 PgC yr−1 (LSMs) during 2015/2016. LSM simulations indicate that a decrease in productivity, rather than increase in respiration, dominated the net biome productivity anomalies in response to ENSO throughout the tropics, mainly associated with prolonged drought conditions.This article is part of a discussion meeting issue ‘The impact of the 2015/2016 El Niño on the terrestrial tropical carbon cycle: patterns, mechanisms and implications’.

Accurate assessment of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and their redistribution among the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere - the "global carbon budget" - is important to better understand the global carbon cycle, support the development of climate policies, and project future climate change. Here we describe data sets and methodology to quantify the five major components of the global carbon budget and their uncertainties. Fossil CO2 emissions (E-FF) are based on energy statistics and cement production data, while emissions from land use and land-use change (E-LUC), mainly deforestation, are based on land use and land -use change data and bookkeeping models. Atmospheric CO2 concentration is measured directly and its growth rate (G(ATM)) is computed from the annual changes in concentration. The ocean CO2 sink (S-OCEAN) and terrestrial CO2 sink (S-LAND) are estimated with global process models constrained by observations. The resulting carbon budget imbalance (B-IM), the difference between the estimated total emissions and the estimated changes in the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere, is a measure of imperfect data and understanding of the contemporary carbon cycle. All uncertainties are reported as +/- 1 sigma. For the last decade available (2008-2017), E-FF was 9.4 +/- 0.5 GtC yr(-1), E-LUC 1.5 +/- 0.7 GtC yr(-1), G(ATM) 4.7 +/- 0.02 GtC yr(-1), S-OCEAN 2.4 +/- 0.5 GtC yr(-1), and S-LAND 3.2 +/- 0.8 GtC yr(-1), with a budget imbalance B-IM of 0.5 GtC yr(-1) indicating overestimated emissions and/or underestimated sinks. For the year 2017 alone, the growth in E-FF was about 1.6 % and emissions increased to 9.9 +/- 0.5 GtC yr(-1). Also for 2017, E-LUC was 1.4 +/- 0.7 GtC yr(-1), G(ATM) was 4.6 +/- 0.2 GtC yr(-1), S-OCEAN was 2.5 +/- 0.5 GtC yr(-1), and S-LAND was 3.8 +/- 0.8 GtC yr(-1), with a B-IM of 0.3 GtC. The global atmospheric CO2 concentration reached 405.0 +/- 0.1 ppm averaged over 2017. For 2018, preliminary data for the first 6-9 months indicate a renewed growth in E-FF of +2.7 % (range of 1.8 % to 3.7 %) based on national emission projections for China, the US, the EU, and India and projections of gross domestic product corrected for recent changes in the carbon intensity of the economy for the rest of the world. The analysis presented here shows that the mean and trend in the five components of the global carbon budget are consistently estimated over the period of 1959-2017, but discrepancies of up to 1 GtC yr(-1) persist for the representation of semi-decadal variability in CO2 fluxes. A detailed comparison among individual estimates and the introduction of a broad range of observations show (1) no consensus in the mean and trend in land -use change emissions, (2) a persistent low agreement among the different methods on the magnitude of the land CO2 flux in the northern extra-tropics, and (3) an apparent underestimation of the CO2 variability by ocean models, originating outside the tropics. This living data update documents changes in the methods and data sets used in this new global carbon budget and the progress in understanding the global carbon cycle compared with previous publications of this data set (Le Quere et al., 2018, 2016, 2015a, b, 2014, 2013). All results presented here can be downloaded from