Received: 23 March 2019 Revised: 21 March 2020 Accepted: 19 April 2020

DOI: 10.1002/ima.22438

RESEARCH ARTICLE

An enhanced weighted greedy analysis pursuit algorithm

with application to EEG signal reconstruction

Fahimeh Mohagheghian1,2,3 | Mohammad Reza Deevband2 |

Nasser Samadzadehaghdam3,4 | Hassan Khajehpour3,4 | Bahador Makkiabadi3,4

1
Department of Biomedical Engineering,
University of Connecticut, Storrs,
Abstract
Connecticut In the past decade, compressed sensing (CS) has provided an efficient frame-
2
Department of Medical Physics and work for signal compression and recovery as the intermediate steps in signal
Biomedical Engineering, School of
processing. The well-known greedy analysis algorithm, called Greedy Analysis
Medicine, Shahid Beheshti University of
Medical Sciences (SBMU), Tehran, Iran Pursuit (GAP) has the capability of recovering the signals from a restricted
3
Research Center for Biomedical number of measurements. In this article, we propose an extension to the GAP
Technology and Robotics (RCBTR), to solve the weighted optimization problem satisfying an inequality constraint
Institute of Advanced Medical
Technologies (IAMT), Tehran University
based on the Lorentzian cost function to modify the EEG signal reconstruction
of Medical Sciences (TUMS), Tehran, Iran in the presence of heavy-tailed impulsive noise. Numerical results illustrate
4
Department of Medical Physics and the effectiveness of our proposed algorithm, called enhanced weighted GAP
Biomedical Engineering, School of
(ewGAP) to reinforce the efficiency of the signal reconstruction and provide an
Medicine, Tehran University of Medical
Sciences (TUMS), Tehran, Iran appropriate candidate for compressed sensing of the EEG signals. The
suggested algorithm achieves promising reconstruction performance and
Correspondence
Bahador Makkiabadi, Department of
robustness that outperforms other analysis-based approaches such as GAP,
Medical Physics and Biomedical engineering, Analysis Subspace Pursuit (ASP), and Analysis Compressive Sampling
School of Medicine, Tehran University of Matching Pursuit (ACoSaMP).
Medical Sciences (TUMS), Tehran, Iran.
Email: b-makkiabadi@sina.tums.ac.ir
KEYWORDS

Funding information compressed sensing, cosparse analysis model, EEG signal reconstruction, Greedy Analysis
Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Pursuit, sparsity
Sciences

1 | INTRODUCTION than the original data, and reconstruct the signals by a

Electrical potentials of the head surface produced by
the neural activity of the brain can be measured on the
scalp, using EEG electrodes. EEG signal is considered
as one of the most frequently used biological signals
and has several significant applications in medicine
and biomedical engineering. Generally, storage and
transmission of the continuous EEG data lead to high
power consumption due to the high sampling rate con-
strained by the Nyquist rate from the Shannon-
Nyquist sampling theorem. Compressed sensing, also
known as the compressive sampling, enables us to
acquire the compressive signals with far fewer samples
nonlinear procedure.1,2
The EEG signal recovery using the CS leads to solving
an underdetermined linear inverse problem:
y = Mx ð1Þ
where the original EEG measurement vector x   n is
sampled at the Nyquist rate (in the time domain) and
y   m specifies the compressed form of the vector x and
M  m × n (m < n), is the sampling or the measurement
matrix. If the measurement matrix satisfies some prop-
erties, such as null space property or the restricted
isometry property (RIP), classical CS can successfully

Int J Imaging Syst Technol. 2020;1–13. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/ima © 2020 Wiley Periodicals LLC 1
2 MOHAGHEGHIAN ET AL.
recover the signal x from its compressive measure-
ments y.3 The assumption of m < n implies that Equa-
tion (1) is an underdetermined inverse problem and a
typical approach to solve the problem is based on sig-
nal sparsity as a priori information.
1.1 | Sparse synthesis approach
The sparse synthesis model of a signal of interest x is
presented by a sparse representation of the signal x,
which is formulated as x = Dz, where z   d is
assumed to be a k-sparse vector with respect to the
(possibly) redundant (d > n) dictionary D   n × d. A k-
sparse vector z is a vector with the number of non-
zero elements equals to k, which is much smaller
than the vector length (k = |z| 0  d). Knowing the
measured signal y and measurement matrix M, in
sparse synthesis model the signal x is reconstructed
by solving the following optimization problem (syn-
thesis formulation):
minkzk0 subject to y = φz ð2Þ
xd
where φ = MD and x = Dz. The optimization problem
Equation (2) is NP-hard and supposed to require a combi-
natorial search and have exponential complexity.4 Thus,
an alternative algorithm called Basis pursuit (BP)5 is fre-
quently used, which solves a convex problem based on l1-
minimization. Wavelets, B-spline and Gabor dictionaries
have been suggested as sparsifying transforms to sparsely
represent the EEG signals.6,7
1.2 | Cosparse analysis approach
The counterpart for the sparse synthesis model is called
the cosparse analysis model and suggests for a signal x,
the possibly redundant (d > n) analysis operator (or dic-
tionary) Ω   d × n, which is defined such that the analy-
sis representation vector Ωx would be sparse. The signal
x is called cosparse if its cosparsity l, which is calculated
by l = d − kΩxk0, is large. The index set containing the
zero elements of the analysis representation Ωx is called
the cosupport of x.
Then, the optimization model for the cosparse sig-
nal recovery is formulated as follows (analysis
formulation):
minn kΩxk0 subject to y = Mx ð3Þ
x
The l1-relaxation of the above analysis prior problem
Equation (3) is assumed as the main approach to recover
the signal x.
Unlike the synthesis model, if the signal x and the anal-
ysis operator Ω are specified for the cosparse analysis model
then, the analysis representation of the signal x, i.e. Ωx can
entirely be computed. Since there is no ambiguity about Ωx
and it is uniquely specified by Ω and x, it has been argued
that the uniqueness condition is provided inherently for the
analysis prior model and the question of uniqueness is only
considered for solving the inverse problem. Further, it has
been previously reported that the EEG signals do not have a
sparse representation in transformed domains that is,
applying sparsifying transforms to the EEG signals.7 Thus,
the cosparse analysis model has been proposed as the
appropriate recovery method for EEG signals that yields
better reconstruction results compared to the sparse synthe-
sis model.8-10
1.3 | Related works
The l1-minimization problem was firstly investigated by
Candes et al.11 In the field of signal processing, the
weighted l1-minimization with prior information has
been frequently used for signal reconstruction.
To solve the analysis based problem (Equation (3)),
the greedy-type algorithms such as Greedy Analysis Pur-
suit12-14 or thresholding-based methods such as iterative
hard thresholding (IHT) have been proposed.15 Several
modifications of the greedy algorithms, incorporated par-
tially known support information, have been performed
for compressed sensing.16 Modification of the IHT,17
Binary Iterative Hard Thresholding (BIHT),18 Orthogonal
Matching Pursuit (OMP),19 Compressive Sampling
Matching Pursuit (CoSaMP),20 and re-weighted least
squares21 algorithms were studied in References 22-24.
The iterative reweighted approach can be considered as a
classical method to solve the lp-norm optimization prob-
lem.25 The reweighted l1-norm algorithm was developed
with Iteratively Reweighted Least Squares (IRLS) for solv-
ing the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator
(LASSO) problem, as proposed in References 26,27. How-
ever, the speed of convergence of IRLS solver was not very
competitive compared to the advanced methods of solving
the optimization problem with l1-norm prior, and the
method suffered from potential numerical instabilities due
to the precision limitation in the calculation of the inverse
matrix.28 The IRLS method was utilized in the FOCal
Underdetermined System Solver (FOCUSS) algorithm to
solve the l0-norm prior problem25,29 and more generally,
lp-norm penalization problem with p≤ 1.30
MOHAGHEGHIAN ET AL.
In the context of cosparse signal recovery Giryes et
al31,32 proposed an analysis version of IHT and HTP,
called analysis IHT (AIHT) and analysis HTP (AHTP).
Both AIHT and AHTP methods have been accompa-
nied with recovery guarantees analogous to the RIP-
based guarantees, which are applied for the synthesis
equivalent methods IHT and HTP. The other two
algorithms are ACoSaMP and ASP as the analysis ver-
sions for CoSaMP and Subspace Pursuit (SP).32,33 Liu
et al34 developed a modified (reweighed) GAP algo-
rithm to solve the weighted regularized l2-minimization
problem. The weight matrix was iteratively constructed
as a function of the inner product of the approximation
of the original signal x and the analysis dictionary rows
at estimated cosupport locations. The algorithm itera-
tively determines the weights of the next iteration from
the value of the current solution to form an adaptive
weight matrix to fill the gap between non-convex and
convex optimization. Zhang et al proposed the CoIRLq
Algorithm as an iterative reweighted method to deal
with the nonconvex lp-norm optimization with a varia-
tional framework, which reconstructed both noisy and
noiseless signals with weaker sufficient conditions and
better performance compared to its convex counterpart
and other methods such as GAP.35
As the data acquired by EEG data acquisition systems
as well as other sensing operators are corrupted with
noise, all CS signal reconstruction methods have been
developed to approximate the signals from noisy mea-
surements. However, commonly applied CS reconstruc-
tion algorithms are based on Gaussian noise assumption
and fail to recover the signals contaminated with non-
Gaussian impulsive noise. In recent years, several
research efforts have been carried out to address the sig-
nal recovery problem assuming impulsive processes.36-42
Several approaches have been proposed based on data
fidelity criterion, which replaces the l2-norm by a more
robust objective function. A continuous mixed norm
(CMN) was exploited in Reference 43 for robust sparse
recovery instead of lp-norm. In Reference 37, Carrillo et
al proposed the Lorentzian Based Basis Pursuit method
based on l1 minimization and Lorentzian norm con-
straint on the residual error for the reconstruction of
sparse signals in the impulsive environment. An exten-
sion to this approach was proposed by Arce38 to develop
an algorithm employing iterative weighted myriad filters
based on Lorentzian cost function with an l0-norm regu-
larization term. In Reference 44, the authors suggested
Huber iterative hard thresholding (HIHT) and in Refer-
ence 41, an iterative hard thresholding algorithm using a
Lorentzian cost function for reconstructing the sparse sig-
nals in the presence of impulsive noise.
3
In Reference 45, a review of robust sparse signal
reconstruction strategies was presented. The authors con-
sidered signal reconstruction in CS, when the measured
signals are corrupted by outliers or impulsive noise. They
showed that the robust techniques such as l1-based coor-
dinate descent l1-CD),40 Lorentzian-based basis pursuit
(LBP), Lorentzian-based iterative hard thresholding
(LITH),41 Lorentzian-based coordinate descent (L-CD),
robust lasso (R-Lasso) method, Huber iterative hard
thresholding (HIHT) method, and l1-OMP method out-
perform other traditional CS methods, when the com-
pressive measurements have large deviations and show
comparable performance in light-tailed cases.
1.4 | Our contribution
The aim of this study is to develop an algorithm for EEG
signal reconstruction in noisy (Gaussian and non-Gauss-
ian) as well as noiseless environments. In this article, we
investigate the signal reconstruction performance in the
cosparse analysis framework through a weighted analysis
optimization problem subject to a Lorentzian cost func-
tion. We propose an extension to the GAP algorithm
based on Lorentzian norm data fitting to enhance the
recovery performance in a non-Gaussian noisy environ-
ment as an application for (EEG) signal reconstruction.
Further, we improve the efficiency of the reconstructed
signals by iteratively adjusting the weights to impose the
cosparsity assumption to the solution.
Thus, empirical evidence is provided to demonstrate
the effectiveness of our algorithm in several numerical
experiments for noiseless signals or Gaussian and impul-
sive noise assumptions. The algorithm suggests practical
benefits as it shows promising outcomes for cosparse sig-
nal recovery in a wide range of cosparsity and sampling
ratio and with different noise levels and dictionary
redundancies.
1.5 | Paper organization
The rest of this article is organized as follows. In section 2,
we recall the GAP method and Ω-RIP recovery guaran-
tees for vectors with the sparse representation using the
dictionary Ω. Further, a general overview of the
Lorentzian Based Basis Pursuit technique is introduced.
Then we present our proposed ewGAP algorithm as an
enhanced version of the GAP algorithm. In section 3, we
provide the numerical experiments for simulated EEG
signals. In section 4, we conclude the derived results with
a suggestion on the future of the work.
4 MOHAGHEGHIAN ET AL.
2 | METHODS
2.1 | Greedy Analysis Pursuit
Algorithm (GAP)
Greedy Analysis Pursuit is a greedy algorithm inspired by
the well-known greedy pursuit algorithm used in the syn-
thesis model, that is, the OMP.14 The strategy in GAP is
based on the identification of the locality of the zero-val-
ued entries (or elements) of Ωx to specify an estimation
of the cosupport λ and then, update the signal x using the
estimated cosupport. Unlike the synthesis model, GAP
detects the non-zero elements to determine the locations
of the zero-value elements. The cosupport is initialized
with the whole set size d, and through several iterations,
its size reduces to l (or less, d − m), described as follows.
Let x be the sparse signal measured by y = Mx, where
M is an m × n (m < n) measurement matrix with rows
incoherent with signal x. At first step of GAP, an initial
approximation of the signal x is derived based on the fol-
lowing optimization problem:
x^0 = arg min
x
kΩxk22 subject to y = Mx ð4Þ
In the second step, cosupport is estimated using the
initially estimated signal x (the index set of elements in Ωx
with the smallest absolute value are considered as
cosupport). Using the estimated cosupport, a new estima-
tion of the signal x is attained by solving the above optimi-
zation problem Equation (4) and subsequently, a new
cosupport is estimated based on the estimated signal x.
Finally, the cosparse signal recovery is achieved by repeat-
ing the first and second steps as mentioned above.14 In
order to ensure the exact recovery of the signal the Ω-RIP,
which is an extension to the standard RIP11 is applied.
2.1.1 | Ω-RIP definition
The measurement matrix M has the restricted isometry
property adapted to Ω (Ω-RIP) with the parameter δl if δl
is the smallest constant that satisfies:
ð1 −δl Þ kxk22 ≤ kMxk22 ≤ ð1 + δl Þkxk22 ð5Þ
where Ω is the analysis operator and Ωx is (d − l)-sparse
(has at least l zeroes).11,32
For random matrices with independent Bernoulli,
Gaussian or Sub-Gaussian entries if
the  number of mea-
surements m is on the order of l × log dl the Ω-RIP would
be fulfilled.11
2.2 | Lorentzian based basis pursuit
Lorentzian basis pursuit (BP) method37 is a robust algo-
rithm to reconstruct the sparse signals when the mea-
surements are corrupted by impulsive noise and
outperforms the state of the art recovery algorithms in
impulsive environments.41 Since Large deviations are not
heavily penalized by the Lorentzian norm, as by the l1
and l2-norms, it is a more robust error metric in the pres-
ence of impulsive noise.37,46
To estimate x from y the following non-linear optimi-
zation problem is used in Lorentzian BP:
minn kxk1 subject to ky −φxkLL2 ,γ < ϵ ð6Þ
x
where γ is the scale parameter and ϵ is the measurement
(sampling) noise.
The Lorentzian norm or LL2 norm is defined as:
X
m

kukLL2 ,γ = log 1 + γ − 2 ui 2 , um , γ > 0 ð7Þ
i=1
The Lorentzian norm has significant properties that
make it appropriate for impulsive and Gaussian noise.
Briefly, the Lorentzian norm:
• is a continuous function, which has this characteristic
everywhere.
• is convex near the origin, which behaves as an l2-norm
cost function for small deviations.
• does not over penalize large variations leading to a
robust metric for gross deviations of the signal.
2.3 | Enhanced weighted GAP (ewGAP)
According to the advantages of Lorentzian norm-based
recovery methods, we propose the following weighted
GAP algorithm using Lorentzian norm for data fitting as
a greedy-based optimization strategy to estimate signal
x  n from measurement vector y  m:
minn kWΩxk22 subject to ky −MxkLL2 ,γ < ϵ ð8Þ
x
where W is the diagonal weight matrix with positive sca-
lars on the diagonal, Ω is the analysis operator (or dictio-
nary) such that the analysis representation vector Ωx
would be sparse, and k:kLL2 ,γ is the Lorentzian norm with
the scale parameter γ.
MOHAGHEGHIAN ET AL. 5

A diversity of possible functions can be supposed to

calculate the weight matrix W. Regarding the FOCUSS ewGAP Algorithm
and reweighted l1 minimization5 algorithms, the weight 1. Input parameters: the measurement matrix M,
matrix n o
in each p −2iteration k is computed as analysis dictionary Ω, the measured vector y, the
W = diag ΩΛ^ k − 1 x^k − 1 2 , (0 ≤ p ≤ 1), where bx is the esti- cosparsity level l (or the number of zeros in
mated signal and ΩΛ^ is the dictionary acquired at the sparse representation), and parameters
estimated cosupport Λ ^ at the previous step k − 1.34
Therefore, the l2-norm weighted optimization prob- γ, ϵ, ϵ1 , T > 0
lem Equation (8) is equal to the lp-norm unweighted opti-
2. Initialization:
mization problem Equation (9), which is a non-convex
optimization problem: • Initial iteration: k = 0
• Initial cosupport: Λ ^ 0 = f1, 2, 3, …,dg
• Initial weight matrix W = I
minn kΩxkpp subject to ky − MxkLL2 ,γ < ϵ ð9Þ • Initial solution:
x

x^0 = argmin
x
kW ΩΛ^ 0 xk22 subject to ky −Mxk22 < ϵ
It is highly reasonable to solve the lp-norm
ð10Þ
(0 ≤ p ≤ 1) instead of l2-norm prior problem to promote
the cosparsity of the solution. The minimization yields 3. Iterations k ! k + 1 and accomplish the fol-
the unique solution whenever the corresponding lowing steps:
unweighted counterpart has a unique solution, though
the weighted and unweighted optimization problems • Compute α = Ω^ xk − 1
have different solutions. Depending on the selected • Find the largest elements: γ k = {i :
weights, the weighted optimization might improve the |αi| = maxj|αj|}
signal reconstruction and outperform simple • Update the cosupport: Λ ^ k − 1 ∖Γ k
^k = Λ
implementations of lp-norm minimization. Candes et al5 • Update the weight matrix Wk
have suggested that as a general rule of thumb, the • Update the solution:
weights should have an inverse relationship to the true
signal magnitudes. x^k = arg minkWk ΩΛ^ k xk22 subject to ky −MxkLL2 ,γ < ϵ
x
In the proposed iterative optimization problem by
solving the unweighted equivalent of Equation (8), an ð11Þ
inaccurate signal estimation is provided at the first itera-
tion, through which the Ωx coefficients with the largest x k − x^k − 1 k22 ≤ T
• Stopping criterion: If k ≥ l or k^
absolute values are identified. The rows of Ω, or kMx^k − yk∞ ≤ ϵ1 , stop.
corresponding to the identified largest coefficients are not 4. Output: The identified solution: x^k .
belonging to the cosupport. Thus, these rows should be
removed from the cosupport. In the next iterations, the
remaining small coefficients are identified and removed
by applying the weights through down-weighting the As y is the measured data vector and M is a measure-
large coefficients. ment matrix, the main objective is to obtain the
Since the weights modify in each iteration, the solu- unknown signal x, which should be estimated from y.
tion of the weighted optimization problem yields a Whereas the initial starting point for vector x is consider-
more reasonable approximation of the signal cosupport ably involved with the experimental consequences, the
after each iteration. Consequently, the solution can be ewGAP algorithm is initialized with the solution x of
derived by solving an iterative weighted minimization unweighted equivalent regularized problem as the GAP
problem using the weights that are highly influenced algorithm proposes this technique for initialization.
by the estimated cosupport. However, without knowing
the original signal and the cosupport, the construction
of the accurate weight matrix is substantially impossi- 3 | EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
ble, but their approximation in each step leads to grad- A N D DI S C U S S I O N
ually correcting the solution of the main problem.
Details of the enhanced weighted GAP algorithm are To evaluate the efficiency of the proposed ewGAP algo-
described below. rithm, we conduct several experiments to compare the
6 MOHAGHEGHIAN ET AL.
F I G U R E 1 A, Typical simulated signal x with n = 256; B, Sparse analysis representation vector ωx with l = 240 [Color figure can be
viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
reconstruction results of our algorithm with the well-
known cosparse algorithm GAP as well as other cosparse
algorithms such as ASP, ACoSaMP, modified GAP, and
CoIRLq, using synthetic data.
We run 50 realizations in each experiment to recon-
struct the signal x from measurements y using each algo-
rithm and quantify the recovery results via the
normalized MSE (Mean Square Error) calculated
between the original signal and the reconstructed signal
averaging over all realizations. The experiments are per-
formed using MATLAB optimization toolbox,47 under a
Core i7 64-bit processor and Windows 10 environment.
To simulate noisy data, two different types of noises are
applied to the signals, namely impulsive noise and Gauss-
ian noise as the additive measurement noises.
The parameter settings of ewGAP are as follows:
The d × n analysis operator Ω was specified with i.i.
d. Gaussian entries and approximately unit-norm rows.
The cosparsity l is generated by randomly choosing l
rows of the analysis operator Ω as the index set λ,
namely cosupport. In order to form the synthetic
cosparse EEG signal x, a random signal of length n
with Gaussian i.i.d entries are projected onto the
orthogonal complement of the subspace generated by
the rows of Ω that are denoted by λ.14 Figure 1 shows a
typical noiseless synthetic EEG signal x of length
n = 256 and its sparse analysis (ie, cosparse) represen-
tation vector Ωx with l = 240.
By selecting a sampling ratio (ie, mn ), the m × n mea-
surement operator M yields the synthetic EEG compres-
sive measurements y = Mx. As it has been previously
applied for EEG compression in CS framework, we select
the i.i.d. Gaussian entries for the measurement matrix M
to satisfy the RIP with a high probability.1 The weighting
 p− 2
  2
^k − 1 
function is selected as ΩΛ^ k − 1 x .
Based on different choices for the power of the
weighting function (p), and the scale parameter of the
Lorentzian norm (γ), we might acquire different versions
of our algorithm. In the following experiments, we set
p = 0.5 (is empirically chosen) and select two values for
the scale parameter γ = 0.1, 0.5. In all experiments, the
value of parameters ϵ1 and T were empirically selected as
10−2 and 10−5, respectively.
In the context of biomedical engineering, a kind
of model error considered for biological signal analy-
sis is due to the combination of noise and the origi-
nal signals. Thus, we conduct a sequence of
experiments to evaluate the performance of several
algorithms for simulated EEG signal reconstruction.
The experiments and results are categorized into the
following sub-sections: Noiseless data, Corrupted data by
Gaussian noise, and Corrupted data by impulsive noise.
3.1 | Noiseless data
3.1.1 | Recovery performance vs
cosparsity
In this section, we examine the recovery error for signals
without additive noise to evaluate the efficiency of
ewGAP algorithm in the noiseless environment.
Figure 2 presents the average MSE calculated
between the original and reconstructed signals aver all
realizations for different signal cosparsity. The input
parameters set as m = 128, n = 256 for m × n matrix M,
MOHAGHEGHIAN ET AL.
d = 512 for the d × n analysis operator Ω (over-
completeness factor is equal to 2, which yields
d = 2n = 512).
From the figure, it can be seen that ewGap (both ver-
sions, using γ = 0.1 and γ = 0.5) is the most efficient algo-
rithm when the signals are reconstructed with high
cosparsity levels. Further, for low cosparsities, ewGAP
shows a more acceptable reconstruction error compared
to the other algorithms.
F I G U R E 2 Performance of signal reconstruction by MSE as a
function of the cosparsity l, with n = 256, m = 128, d = 512 [Color
figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
F I G U R E 3 Performance of signal reconstruction by MSE as
a function of the number of measurements m, with n = 256,
l = 200, d = 512 [Color figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]
7
3.1.2 | Recovery performance vs
measurement numbers
Figure 3 depicts the recovery performance of the algo-
rithms as a function of the number of signal measure-
ments. The parameters set as n = 256, d = 512 and the
cosparsity level of the signal is chosen as l = 200. The
number of measurements varies from 26 to 230, which
leads to changing the sampling ratio between 0.1 and 0.9.
The figure indicates the comparable performance for all
algorithms in the low and high sampling ratios, while
shows the superiority of ewGAP for middle values of
sampling ratio.
3.2 | Corrupted data by Gaussian noise
3.2.1 | Recovery performance vs
cosparsity
The next experiment investigates the reconstruction
performance vs the cosparsity level for corrupted sig-
nals with Gaussian noise. The average performance
of 50 realizations of the signal recovery for each algo-
rithm is depicted in Figure 4. The signal length set as
n = 256 and the number of measurements is fixed as
m = 128, which yields the sampling ratio of δ = 0.5.
The noisy signals are generated with SNR = 20 dB
and the dictionary overcompleteness set to
2 (d = 512).
F I G U R E 4 Performance of noisy signal reconstruction by
MSE as a function of the cosparsity with n = 256, m = 128, d = 512,
input SNR = 20 dB [Color figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]
8 MOHAGHEGHIAN ET AL.

TABLE 1 Average and SD of the reconstruction MSE as a function of the cosparsity (n = 256, d = 512, m = 128, SNR = 20 dB)

Cosparsity

150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250
GAP Mean 2.10e−03 2.05e−03 2.07e−03 2.00e−03 1.96e−03 1.92e−03 1.93e−03 1.85e−03 1.83e−03 1.71e−03 1.75e−03
Std 2.50e−04 2.43e−04 2.49e−04 2.41e−04 2.58e−04 2.44e−04 2.93e−04 2.30e−04 2.33e−04 2.28e−04 2.47e−04
mGAP Mean 2.10e−03 2.05e−03 2.07e−03 2.00e−03 1.96e−03 1.92e−03 1.93e−03 1.85e−03 1.84e−03 1.72e−03 1.75e−03
Std 2.52e−04 2.42e−04 2.51e−04 2.40e−04 2.53e−04 2.44e−04 2.93e−04 2.33e−04 2.36e−04 2.29e−04 2.48e−04
ewGAP Mean 2.02e−03 1.93e−03 1.95e−03 1.88e−03 1.77e−03 1.72e−03 1.71e−03 1.58e−03 1.53e−03 1.44e−03 1.41e−03
γ = 0.1 Std 2.88e−04 2.73e−04 2.52e−04 2.48e−04 2.75e−04 2.63e−04 3.29e−04 2.18e−04 2.56e−04 2.40e−04 2.19e−04
ewGAP Mean 2.07e−03 1.97e−03 1.99e−03 1.92e−03 1.80e−03 1.74e−03 1.71e−03 1.54e−03 1.52e−03 1.40e−03 1.38e−03
γ= 0.5 Std 3.07e−04 2.84e−04 2.78e−04 2.77e−04 2.91e−04 2.68e−04 3.42e−04 2.25e−04 2.58e−04 2.23e−04 2.42e−04
CoIRLq Mean 2.12e−03 2.06e−03 2.08e−03 2.02e−03 1.99e−03 1.95e−03 1.97e−03 1.89e−03 1.88e−03 1.75e−03 1.81e−03
Std 2.49e−04 2.41e−04 2.48e−04 2.33e−04 2.61e−04 2.49e−04 2.79e−04 2.31e−04 2.35e−04 2.50e−04 2.51e−04
ACoSaMP Mean 2.40e−03 2.40e−03 2.46e−03 2.50e−03 2.50e−03 2.48e−03 2.62e−03 2.74e−03 3.42e−03 5.26e−03 6.09e−03
Std 2.59e−04 2.21e−04 3.10e−04 2.78e−04 2.93e−04 3.02e−04 3.69e−04 4.25e−04 6.64e−04 1.04e−03 8.75e−04
ASP Mean 2.74e−03 2.69e−03 2.66e−03 2.59e−03 2.66e−03 2.58e−03 2.64e−03 2.73e−03 3.13e−03 4.41e−03 5.26e−03
Std 3.41e−04 3.01e−04 3.98e−04 3.15e−04 4.00e−04 3.43e−04 4.27e−04 3.84e−04 6.18e−04 3.41e−04 3.01e−04

According to Figures 2 and 4, we can find that: (a)

The acquired average MSE values for different signal
recovery algorithms show the same trend in both
noiseless and Gaussian noise environments. (b)
ewGAP method (using both γ = 0.1 and γ = 0.5)
achieves the lowest average MSE among all the algo-
rithms. The best performance for ewGAP is observed
for higher cosparsity values. (c) ASP and ACoSaMP
methods show the highest average error values among
all the algorithms, specifically for high cosparsities.
Table 1 illustrates the results of this section in terms of
averaged MSE and SD in different cosparsities for all
algorithms.

3.2.2 | Recovery performance vs

measurement numbers
The next experiment is conducted to explore the behavior
of the algorithms with varied sampling ratios, when mea-
sured signals are corrupted with Gaussian noise (Fig-
ure 3). Signals are generated with cosparsity l = 200 and
the signal length set as n = 256. As the previous experi-
ment, the dictionary overcompleteness set to 2 (d = 512).
The number of measurements varies from 26 to 230
(sampling ratio between 0.1 and 0.9).
Regarding Figures 3 and 5, one can see that: (a) For
very low and very high values of sampling ratio ewGAP
achieves comparable values of MSE in comparison with
GAP, mGAP, and CoIRLq algorithms in both clean and
F I G U R E 5 Performance of noisy signal recovery by MSE as a
function of the number of measurements m, with n = 256, l = 200,
d = 512, input SNR = 20 dB [Color figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]
noisy signals. (b) The superiority of ewGAP over other
algorithms is observable, when the measured signal is
moderately compressed (sampling ratio of 0.5 to 0.7). (c)
ASP and ACoSaMP algorithms indicate the largest devia-
tion from average MSE acquired by the other algorithms
however, they show comparable or lower MSE for high
sampling ratios that might interpret as a performance
inconsistency. Table 2 provides the results in terms of
MOHAGHEGHIAN ET AL. 9

TABLE 2 Average and SD of the reconstruction MSE as a function of the measurements number (n = 256, d = 512, l = 200,
SNR = 20 dB)

Number of measurements (sampling ratio)

26 (0.1) 51 (0.2) 77 (0.3) 102 (0.4) 128 (0.5) 154 (0.6) 179 (0.7) 205 (0.8) 230 (0.9)
GAP Mean 5.10e−03 3.87e−03 3.05e−03 2.52e−03 1.99e−03 1.51e−03 1.15e−03 7.87e−04 6.21e−04
Std 3.38e−04 4.16e−04 3.44e−04 2.35e−04 2.35e−04 1.81e−04 1.99e−04 1.35e−04 1.43e−04
mGAP Mean 5.13e−03 3.88e−03 3.05e−03 2.52e−03 1.99e−03 1.51e−03 1.14e−03 7.57e−04 5.25e−04
Std 3.30e−04 4.15e−04 3.44e−04 2.39e−04 2.38e−04 1.84e−04 2.00e−04 1.29e−04 9.82e−05
ewGAP Mean 5.00e−03 3.79e−03 2.96e−03 2.36e−03 1.79e−03 1.31e−03 9.47e−04 6.03e−04 4.56e−04
γ = 0.1 Std 4.41e−04 5.09e−04 4.25e−04 2.86e−04 2.55e−04 2.09e−04 1.99e−04 1.29e−04 1.17e−04
ewGAP Mean 5.04e−03 3.83e−03 2.99e−03 2.39e−03 1.76e−03 1.29e−03 9.11e−04 5.58e−04 3.39e−04
γ = 0.5 Std 4.75e−04 5.31e−04 4.38e−04 2.92e−04 2.51e−04 1.96e−04 1.96e−04 1.35e−04 8.39e−05
CoIRLq Mean 5.20e−03 3.97e−03 3.10e−03 2.56e−03 2.02e−03 1.54e−03 1.17e−03 6.83e−04 4.21e−04
Std 3.09e−04 3.96e−04 3.28e−04 2.53e−04 2.31e−04 1.89e−04 2.01e−04 1.45e−04 1.01e−04
ACoSaMP Mean 5.44e−03 4.41e−03 3.69e−03 3.17e−03 2.56e−03 2.35e−03 4.50e−03 9.37e−04 3.77e−04
Std 3.40e−04 4.23e−04 3.80e−04 2.98e−04 3.68e−04 4.65e−04 1.11e−03 3.90e−04 1.51e−04
ASP Mean 5.59e−03 5.39e−03 4.17e−03 3.38e−03 2.68e−03 2.16e−03 4.23e−03 8.82e−04 3.85e−04
Std 3.78e−04 6.95e−04 5.21e−04 4.98e−04 4.00e−04 3.84e−04 8.58e−04 3.42e−04 1.46e−04

averaged MSE and SD for noisy signal reconstruction

over all trials under different compression ratios for all
algorithms.

3.2.3 | Recovery performance vs

dictionary overcompleteness

In this section, the reconstruction performance is evalu-

ated as a function of the dictionary overcompleteness for
corrupted signals with Gaussian noise. The number of
measurements is fixed as m = 128 and the signal length set
as n = 256. The noisy signals were generated with
SNR = 20 dB.
The relationship between the dictionary redundancy
and reconstruction error is shown in Figure 6. From the
figure, it can be seen that when the dictionary redun-
dancy is low, the original signal can be restored with a F I G U R E 6 Performance of signal recovery by MSE as a
lower error rate in all algorithms. In addition, ewGAP function of the dictionary redundancy (overcompleteness) with
algorithm indicates better performance in terms of MSE n = 256, m = 128, l = 200, input SNR = 20 dB [Color figure can be
in all overcompleteness values compared to the other viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
algorithms. Table 3 illustrates the MSE and SD values in
detail.
algorithms. A set of l-cosparse vectors (l = 200) of size
n × 1 are generated where n = 256 and d = 512 (over-
3.2.4 | Recovery performance vs noise completeness = 2). Each sample vector is compressed
power via a measurement matrix M with m = 128. Figure 7
presents the performance of the algorithms by the
In this experiment, we examine the effect of Gaussian averaged MSE of the reconstructed signals (over all
noise power on the performance of recovery trials) as a function of noise power. The figure
10 MOHAGHEGHIAN ET AL.

TABLE 3 Average and SD of the reconstruction MSE as a function of the dictionary overcompleteness (n = 256, m = 128, l = 200,
SNR = 20 dB)

Dictionary overcompleteness

1 1.25 1.50 1.75 2

GAP Mean 1.37e−03 1.59e−03 1.71e−03 1.85e−03 1.94e−03
Std 2.32e−04 2.72e−04 2.26e−04 2.19e−04 2.56e−04
mGAP Mean 1.37e−03 1.59e−03 1.70e−03 1.85e−03 1.94e−03
Std 2.34e−04 2.78e−04 2.33e−04 2.22e−04 2.57e−04
ewGAP Mean 9.14e−04 1.23e−03 1.43e−03 1.64e−03 1.74e−03
γ= 0.1 Std 2.45e−04 2.90e−04 2.56e−04 2.41e−04 2.57e−04
ewGAP Mean 8.62e−04 1.25e−03 1.42e−03 1.64e−03 1.74e−03
γ= 0.5 Std 2.44e−04 2.94e−04 2.64e−04 2.59e−04 2.50e−04
CoIRLq Mean 1.40e−03 1.66e−03 1.77e−03 1.90e−03 1.97e−03
Std 3.21e−04 2.89e−04 2.34e−04 2.12e−04 2.51e−04
ACoSaMP Mean 1.12e−03 5.64e−03 2.60e−03 2.49e−03 2.49e−03
Std 6.79e−04 9.93e−04 5.41e−04 3.11e−04 2.80e−04
ASP Mean 8.92e−04 3.82e−03 2.52e−03 2.59e−03 2.67e−03
Std 5.68e−04 8.94e−04 4.46e−04 3.26e−04 3.20e−04

3.3 | Corrupted data by impulsive noise

3.3.1 | Recovery performance vs tail

parameter

In this section, the reconstruction performance is evalu-

F I G U R E 7 Performance of signal recovery by MSE as a
function of the input SNR with n = 256, m = 128, l = 200, d = 512
[Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
demonstrates that ewGAP with γ = 0.1 and γ = 0.5
achieves significantly better performance compared to
the other algorithms and has a robust performance for
all selected levels of noise. Table 4 illustrates the aver-
aged MSE and the SD for noisy signal reconstruction
over all trials under different SNR values for all
algorithms.
ated for the recovery of the cosparse signals with additive
impulsive noise. To this aim, the tail parameter of the
noise (α) is varied from 0.5 to 2, that is, very impulsive to
the Gaussian noise. The parameter β, which specified the
skewness of the noise distribution should lie in the range
[−1, +1]. When it is positive, the distribution is skewed
to the right and when it is negative, the distribution is
skewed to the left. When β = 0 the distribution is sym-
metrical. In this experiment, we set β = 0 for all cases.
Figure 8 shows the performance of the algorithms as a
function of the tail parameter for different algorithms. The
parameters are set as l = 210, n = 256, d = 512 and
m = 128. For small values of α, all algorithms perform
poorly, except ewGAP with γ = 0.1 yields the most faithful
reconstruction. ewGAP with γ = 0.5 produces acceptable
results in comparison to other algorithms, too. Note that
when the tail parameter is close to two (ie, Gaussian case)
all algorithms show approximately similar reconstruction
results. In addition, note that ewGAP with γ = 0.1 main-
tains a consistent descending trend over all values of the
tail parameter. Table 5 shows the averaged MSE and SD
for noisy signal reconstruction over all trials under different
values of the tail parameter for all algorithms.
MOHAGHEGHIAN ET AL. 11

TABLE 4 Average and SD of the reconstruction MSE as a function of the input SNR (n = 256, m = 128, l = 200, d = 512)

SNR

10 15 20 25 30 35
GAP Mean 2.36e−03 2.08e−03 1.95e−03 1.95e−03 1.87e−03 1.86e−03
Std 1.91e−04 2.37e−04 2.54e−04 2.34e−04 2.76e−04 1.91e−04
mGAP Mean 2.36e−03 2.08e−03 1.95e−03 1.95e−03 1.87e−03 1.86e−03
Std 1.87e−04 2.37e−04 2.54e−04 2.35e−04 2.77e−04 1.94e−04
ewGAP Mean 2.20e−03 1.89e−03 1.76e−03 1.76e−03 1.69e−03 1.66e−03
γ = 0.1 Std 2.05e−04 2.65e−04 2.54e−04 2.44e−04 2.84e−04 2.20e−04
ewGAP Mean 2.14e−03 1.86e−03 1.76e−03 1.78e−03 1.73e−03 1.67e−03
γ = 0.5 Std 2.07e−04 2.80e−04 2.70e−04 2.68e−04 2.96e−04 2.28e−04
CoIRLq Mean 2.38e−03 2.12e−03 1.97e−03 1.97e−03 1.90e−03 1.89e−03
Std 1.84e−04 2.33e−04 2.60e−04 2.26e−04 2.67e−04 1.91e−04
ACoSaMP Mean 3.01e−03 2.67e−03 2.52e−03 2.54e−03 2.43e−03 2.38e−03
Std 2.75e−04 3.40e−04 2.62e−04 2.77e−04 3.01e−04 3.03e−04
ASP Mean 3.07e−03 2.77e−03 2.56e−03 2.64e−03 2.53e−03 2.56e−03
Std 3.39e−04 3.17e−04 3.36e−04 3.16e−04 3.42e−04 3.32e−04

In this article, we aimed to improve the signal recon-

F I G U R E 8 Performance of signal reconstruction by MSE as a
function of the tail parameter of the impulsive noise, with n = 256,
m = 128, l = 210, d = 512 [Color figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]
4 | C ON C L U S I ON
As a well-known pursuit method, GAP has the capability
of recovering the signals from a restricted number of
compressive measurements via solving the constrained
least-squares problem with the analysis-model prior.
However, the sensitivity of the least square estimators to
signal outliers leads to reducing the recovery efficiency of
the signals corrupted with non-Gaussian noise.
struction performance of the GAP algorithm, which effec-
tively solves the analysis pursuit problem. Our proposed
approach, called ewGAP solves the weighted optimization
problem satisfying an inequality constraint to enhance the
signal recovery from compressive measurements in the
presence of impulsive noise based on the Lorentzian norm.
Several numerical experiments were performed to
examine the performance of ewGAP for the noiseless envi-
ronment or corrupted signals by Gaussian or impulsive
noise. Our algorithm achieved to outperform the traditional
recovery techniques, which use l2-norm for data fitting
term, specifically when the measurements have gross devia-
tions, that is, high impulsive noise (small values of tail
parameter). This is related to the specific characteristic of
the Lorentzian norm used for data fitting term, which leads
to not heavily penalize large deviations of the measured sig-
nal and makes it appropriate for corrupted signals by
impulsive noise. However, the Lorentzian norm behaves as
a l2-norm cost function for small deviations. The weighted
lp-norm term encourages the cosparse solution by applying
p = 0.5 for the weight, which is iteratively adjusted. Thus,
the weighted lp-norm regularization imposes the cosparsity
assumption to the solution, although it solves a l2-norm
convex optimization problem. Hence, the results demon-
strated higher performance in reconstruction of the noise-
less signals or signals corrupted by Gaussian noise using
ewGAP compared to other mentioned cosparse methods.
As the future work on this topic, the algorithm should
be applied to the real data, which have cosparse represen-
tation, that is, EEG signals.
12 MOHAGHEGHIAN ET AL.

TABLE 5 Average and SD of the reconstruction MSE as a function of the impulsive noise tail parameter (n = 256, m = 128,
d = 512, l = 210)

Tail parameter

0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.50 1.75 2

GAP Mean 7.90e−03 7.83e−03 7.79e−03 7.84e−03 7.74e−03 7.54e−03 7.66e−03
Std 5.12e−04 5.06e−04 5.72e−04 6.12e−04 6.44e−04 5.19e−04 5.16e−04
mGAP Mean 7.90e−03 7.83e−0 7.79e−03 7.84e−03 7.75e−03 7.56e−03 7.64e−03
Std 5.07e−04 5.00e−04 5.55e−04 5.90e−04 6.02e−04 4.51e−04 5.24e−0
ewGAP Mean 7.83e−03 7.78e−03 7.72e−03 7.65e−03 7.66e−03 7.56e−03 7.63e−030
γ = 0.1 Std 5.10e−04 4.16e−04 5.57e−04 4.79e−04 5.82e−04 4.48e−04 5.10e−04
ewGAP Mean 7.91e−03 7.87e−03 7.73e−03 7.81e−03 7.76e−03 7.53e−03 7.65e−03
γ= 0.5 Std 5.87e−04 4.33e−04 5.28e−04 5.37e−04 6.17e−04 4.71e−04 5.40e−04
CoIRLq Mean 7.90e−03 7.83e−03 7.79e−03 7.84e−0 7.75e−03 7.56e−03 7.64e−03
Std 5.06e−04 4.96e−04 5.47e−0 5.90e−04 6.03e−04 4.48e−04 5.25e−04
ACoSaMP Mean 7.93e−03 7.80e−03 7.75e−03 7.84e−0 7.75e−03 7.66e−03 7.66e−03
Std 4.85e−04 5.14e−04 5.31e−04 5.54e−04 6.67e−04 5.30e−04 5.43e−04
ASP Mean 7.87e−03 7.89e−03 7.78e−03 7.80e−03 7.79e−03 7.54e−03 7.63e−03
Std 4.87e−04 5.33e−04 5.30e−04 6.27e−04 5.74e−04 5.40e−04 5.52e−04

A C K N O WL E D G M E N T S 5. Candes EJ, Wakin MB, Boyd SP. Enhancing sparsity by

This study is related to the Ph.D. thesis No. 441 Shahid
Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
We appreciate the “Student Research Committee” and
“Research & Technology Chancellor” in Shahid Beheshti
University of Medical Sciences for their financial support
of this study.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
All the authors confirm that there is no conflict of
interest.
ORCID
Fahimeh Mohagheghian https://orcid.org/0000-0002-
6653-7148
Nasser Samadzadehaghdam https://orcid.org/0000-
0002-5027-3416
R EF E RE N C E S
1. Liu Y, De Vos M, Van Huffel S. Compressed sensing of multi-
channel EEG signals: the simultaneous cosparsity and low-rank
optimization. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2015;62(8):2055-2061.
2. Nasser S, Bahador M, Sadegh M, Mohammad M, Fahimeh
M. A new linearly constrained minimum variance
beamformer for reconstructing EEG sparse sources. Int J
Imag Syst Tech. 2019;29(4):686–700. https://onlinelibrary.
wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ima.22355.
3. Eldar YC, Kutyniok G. Compressed Sensing: Theory and Appli-
cations. NY: Cambridge University Press; 2012.
4. Candes EJ, Tao T. Decoding by linear programming. IEEE
Trans Inform Theory. 2005;51(12):4203-4215.
reweighted ℓ 1 minimization. J Fourier Anal Appl. 2008;14(5):
877-905.
6. Abdulghani AM, Casson AJ, Rodriguez-Villegas E. Compres-
sive sensing scalp EEG signals: implementations and practical
performance. Med Biol Eng Comput. 2012;50(11):1137-1145.
7. Zhang Z, Jung TP, Makeig S, Rao BD. Compressed sensing of
EEG for wireless telemonitoring with low energy consumption
and inexpensive hardware. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2013;60
(1):221-224.
8. Selesnick IW, Figueiredo MA. Signal restoration with over-
complete wavelet transforms: comparison of analysis and syn-
thesis priors. In Wavelets XIII. 2009. International Society for
Optics and Photonics.
9. Majumdar A, Ward RK. Under-determined non-cartesian MR
reconstruction with non-convex sparsity promoting analysis
prior. In International Conference on Medical Image Computing
and Computer-Assisted Intervention. 2010. Springer.
10. Mohsina M, Majumdar A. Gabor based analysis prior formula-
tion for EEG signal reconstruction. Biomed Signal Process Con-
trol. 2013;8(6):951-955.
11. Candes EJ et al. Compressed sensing with coherent and redun-
dant dictionaries. Appl Comput Harmon Anal. 2011;31(1):59-73.
12. Nam S, Davies ME, Elad M, Gribonval R. Cosparse analysis
modeling-uniqueness and algorithms. Paper presented at:
IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Sig-
nal Processing (ICASSP). 22-27 May 2011; Prague, Czech
Republic.
13. Nam S. et al., Cosparse analysis modeling. The 9th International
Conference on Sampling Theory and Applications (SAMPTA-
2011), 2011.
14. Nam S, Davies ME, Elad M, Gribonval R. The cosparse analysis
model and algorithms. Appl Comput Harmon Anal. 2013;34(1):
30-56.
MOHAGHEGHIAN ET AL.
15. Blumensath T, Davies ME. Iterative hard thresholding for com-
pressed sensing. Appl Comput Harmon Anal. 2009;27(3):
265-274.
16. Needell D, Saab R, Woolf T. Weighted-minimization for sparse
recovery under arbitrary prior information. Inf Infer: J IMA.
2017;iaw023.6
17. Blurnensath T, Davies M. Iterative hard thresholding for com-
pressive sensing. Appl Comput Harmon Anal. 2009;27(3):
265-274.
18. Jacques L, Laska JN, Boufounos PT, Baraniuk RG. Robust
1-bit compressive sensing via binary stable embeddings of
sparse vectors. IEEE Trans Inform Theory. 2013;59(4):2082-
2102.
19. Tropp J, Gilbert AC. Signal recovery from partial information
via orthogonal matching pursuit. IEEE Trans Inform Theory.
2007;53(12):4655-4666.
20. Needell D, Tropp JA. CoSaMP: iterative signal recovery from
incomplete and inaccurate samples. Appl Comput Harmon
Anal. 2009;26(3):301-321.
21. Carrillo RE, Barner KE. Iteratively re-weighted least squares
for sparse signal reconstruction from noisy measurements. In.
43rd Annual Conference on Information Sciences and Systems,
2009. CISS 2009. 2009. IEEE.
22. Carrillo RE, Polania LF, Barner KE. Iterative hard thresholding
for compressed sensing with partially known support. In 2011
IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal
Processing (ICASSP). 2011. IEEE.
23. Carrillo RE, Polania LF, Barner KE. Iterative algorithms for
compressed sensing with partially known support. In 2010
IEEE International Conference on Acoustics Speech and Signal
Processing (ICASSP). 2010. IEEE.
24. North P, Needell D. One-bit compressive sensing with partial
support. In 2015 IEEE 6th International Workshop on Computa-
tional Advances in Multi-Sensor Adaptive Processing (CAMSAP).
2015. IEEE.
25. Gorodnitsky IF, Rao BD. Sparse signal reconstruction from lim-
ited data using FOCUSS: a re-weighted minimum norm algo-
rithm. IEEE Trans Signal Process. 1997;45(3):600-616.
26. Schlossmacher E. An iterative technique for absolute devia-
tions curve fitting. J Am Stat Assoc. 1973;68(344):857-859.
27. Holland PW, Welsch RE. Robust regression using iteratively
reweighted least-squares. Commun Stat-Theory Methods. 1977;
6(9):813-827.
28. Gramfort A. Mapping, timing and tracking cortical activations
with MEG and EEG: methods and application to human vision.
Ecole nationale supérieure des telecommunications-ENST. 2009;
1(1):263.
29. Gorodnitsky IF, George JS, Rao BD. Neuromagnetic source
imaging with FOCUSS: a recursive weighted minimum norm
algorithm. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1995;95(4):
231-251.
30. Rao BD, Engan K, Cotter SF, Palmer J, Kreutz-Delgado K. Sub-
set selection in noise based on diversity measure minimization.
IEEE Trans Signal Process. 2003;51(3):760-770.
31. Giryes R. et al. Iterative cosparse projection algorithms for the
recovery of cosparse vectors. Paper presented at: 19th European
Signal Processing Conference. August 29-September 2; Barce-
lona, Spain.
13
32. Giryes R, Nam S, Elad M, Gribonval R, Davies ME. Greedy-like
algorithms for the cosparse analysis model. Linear Algebra
Appl. 2014;441:22-60.
33. Giryes R, Elad M. CoSaMP and SP for the cosparse analysis
model. Paper presented at: Proceedings of the 20th European
Signal Processing Conference (EUSIPCO). August 27-31, 2012;
Bucharest, Romania.
34. Liu Z, Li J, Li W, Dai P. A modified greedy analysis pursuit
algorithm for the cosparse analysis model. Numer Algorith.
2017;74(3):867-887.
35. Zhang S, Qian H, Zhang Z. A Nonconvex Approach for Struc-
tured Sparse Learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1503.02164, 2015.
36. Laska JN, Davenport MA, Baraniuk RG. Exact signal recovery
from sparsely corrupted measurements through the pursuit of
justice. In 2009 Conference Record of the Forty-Third Asilomar
Conference on Signals, Systems and Computers. 2009. IEEE.
37. Carrillo RE, Barner KE, Aysal TC. Robust sampling and recon-
struction methods for sparse signals in the presence of impul-
sive noise. IEEE J Sel Top Signal Process. 2010;4(2):392-408.
38. Arce GR. et al. Reconstruction of sparse signals from ℓ 1
dimensionality-reduced Cauchy random-projections. In 2010
IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal
Processing. 2010. IEEE.
39. Studer C et al. Recovery of sparsely corrupted signals. IEEE
Trans Inform Theory. 2011;58(5):3115-3130.
40. Paredes JL, Arce GR. Compressive sensing signal reconstruc-
tion by weighted median regression estimates. IEEE Trans Sig-
nal Process. 2011;59(6):2585-2601.
41. Carrillo RE, Barner KE. Lorentzian iterative hard thresholding:
robust compressed sensing with prior information. IEEE Trans
Signal Process. 2013;61(19):4822-4833.
42. Zou X, Feng L, Sun H. Robust compressive sensing of multi-
channel EEG signals in the presence of impulsive noise. Inform
Sci. 2018;429:120-129.
43. Javaheri A et al. Robust sparse recovery in impulsive noise via con-
tinuous mixed norm. IEEE Sig Process Lett. 2018;25(8):1146-1150.
44. Ollila E, Kim H-J, Koivunen V. Robust iterative hard
thresholding for compressed sensing. In 2014 6th International
Symposium on Communications, Control and Signal Processing
(ISCCSP). 2014. IEEE.
45. Carrillo RE et al. Robust compressive sensing of sparse signals:
a review. EURASIP J Adv Sig Process. 2016;2016(1):108.
46. Carrillo RE, Aysal TC, Barner KE. A generalized Cauchy distri-
bution framework for problems requiring robust behavior.
EURASIP J Adv Sig Process. 2010;2010(1):312989.
47. Toolbox MO. The MathWorks Inc. MA: Natick; 2002.
How to cite this article: Mohagheghian F,
Deevband MR, Samadzadehaghdam N,
Khajehpour H, Makkiabadi B. An enhanced
weighted greedy analysis pursuit algorithm with
application to EEG signal reconstruction. Int
J Imaging Syst Technol. 2020;1–13. https://doi.org/
10.1002/ima.22438