More Like this

1. Accounting for Bias in the Estimation of r 2 between Two Sets of Noisy Neural Responses

   https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0198-22.2022  

   Pospisil, Dean A. ; Bair, Wyeth ( November 2022 , The Journal of Neuroscience)

   The Pearson correlation coefficient squared,r², is an important tool used in the analysis of neural data to quantify the similarity between neural tuning curves. Yet this metric is biased by trial-to-trial variability; as trial-to-trial variability increases, measured correlation decreases. Major lines of research are confounded by this bias, including those involving the study of invariance of neural tuning across conditions and the analysis of the similarity of tuning across neurons. To address this, we extend an estimator,${\widehat{r}}_{\text{ER}}^2$, that was recently developed for estimating model-to-neuron correlation, in which a noisy signal is compared with a noise-free prediction, to the case of neuron-to-neuron correlation, in which two noisy signals are compared with each other. We compare the performance of our novel estimator to a prior method developed by Spearman, commonly used in other fields but widely overlooked in neuroscience, and find that our method has less bias. We then apply our estimator to demonstrate how it avoids drastic confounds introduced by trial-to-trial variability using data collected in two prior studies (macaque, both sexes) that examined two different forms of invariance in the neural encoding of visual inputs—translation invariance and fill-outline invariance. Our results quantify for the first time the gradual falloff with spatial offset of translation-invariant shape selectivity within visual cortical neuronal receptive fields and offer a principled method to compare invariance in noisy biological systems to that in noise-free models.

   SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENTQuantifying the similarity between two sets of averaged neural responses is fundamental to the analysis of neural data. A ubiquitous metric of similarity, the correlation coefficient, is attenuated by trial-to-trial variability that arises from many irrelevant factors. Spearman recognized this problem and proposed corrected methods that have been extended over a century. We show this method has large asymptotic biases that can be overcome using a novel estimator. Despite the frequent use of the correlation coefficient in neuroscience, consensus on how to address this fundamental statistical issue has not been reached. We provide an accurate estimator of the correlation coefficient and apply it to gain insight into visual invariance.

    

   more » « less
2. Super-resolution multi-reference alignment

   https://doi.org/10.1093/imaiai/iaab003  

   Bendory, Tamir ; Jaffe, Ariel ; Leeb, William ; Sharon, Nir ; Singer, Amit ( February 2021 , Information and Inference: A Journal of the IMA)

   null (Ed.)

   Abstract We study super-resolution multi-reference alignment, the problem of estimating a signal from many circularly shifted, down-sampled and noisy observations. We focus on the low SNR regime, and show that a signal in ${\mathbb{R}}^M$ is uniquely determined when the number $L$ of samples per observation is of the order of the square root of the signal’s length ($L=O(\sqrt{M})$). Phrased more informally, one can square the resolution. This result holds if the number of observations is proportional to $1/\textrm{SNR}^3$. In contrast, with fewer observations recovery is impossible even when the observations are not down-sampled ($L=M$). The analysis combines tools from statistical signal processing and invariant theory. We design an expectation-maximization algorithm and demonstrate that it can super-resolve the signal in challenging SNR regimes. 

   more » « less
3. The causes of continental arc flare ups and drivers of episodic magmatic activity in Cordilleran orogenic systems

   https://doi.org/doi.org/10.1016/j.lithos.2021.106307  

   Chapman, J. ( July 2021 , Lithos)

   null (Ed.)

   Continental arcs in Cordilleran orogenic systems display episodic changes in magma production rate, alternating between flare ups (70–90 km3 km􀀀 1 Myr􀀀 1) and lulls (< 20 km3 km􀀀 1 Myr􀀀 1) on timescales of tens of millions of years. Arc segments or individual magmatic suites may have even higher rates, up several 100 s of km3 km􀀀 1 Myr􀀀 1, during flare ups. These rates are largely determined by estimating volumes of arc crust, but do not reflect melt production from the mantle. The bulk of mantle-derived magmas are recycled back into the mantle by delamination of arc roots after differentiation in the deep crust. Mantle-derived melt production rates for continental arcs are estimated to be 140–215 km3 km􀀀 1 Myr􀀀 1 during flare ups and ≤ 15 km3 km􀀀 1 Myr􀀀 1 during lulls. Melt production rates averaged over multiple magmatic cycles are consistent with independent estimates for partial melting of the mantle wedge in subduction zones, however, the rates during flare ups and lulls are both anomalously high and anomalously low, respectively. The difference in mantle-derived melt production between flare ups and lulls is larger than predicted by petrologic and numerical models that explore the range of globally observed subduction parameters (e.g., convergence rate, height of the mantle wedge). This suggests that other processes are required to increase magmatism during flare ups and suppress magmatism during lulls. There are many viable explanations, but one possibility is that crystallized melts from the asthenospheric mantle wedge are temporarily stored in the deep lithosphere during lulls and then remobilized during flare ups. Basaltic melts may stall in the mantle lithosphere in inactive parts of the arc system, like the back-arc, refertilizing the mantle lithosphere and suppressing melt delivery to the lower crust. Subsequent landward arc migration (i.e., toward the interior of the continent) may encounter such refertilized mantle lithosphere magma source regions, contributing to magmatic activity during a flare up. A review of continental arcs globally suggests that flare ups commonly coincide with landward arc migration and that this migration may start tens of millions of years before the flare up occurs. The region of magmatic activity, or arc width, can also expand significantly during a flare up. Arc migration or expansion into different mantle source regions and across lithospheric and crustal boundaries can cause temporal shifts in the radiogenic isotopic composition of magmatism. In the absence of arc migration, temporal shifts are more muted. Isotopic studies of mantle xenoliths and exposures of deep arc crust suggest that that primary, mantle-derived magmas generated during flare ups reflect substantial contributions from the subcontinental mantle lithosphere. Arc migration may be caused by a variety of mechanisms, including slab anchoring or slab folding in the mantle transition zone that could generate changes in slab dip. Episodic slab shallowing is associated with many tectonic processes in Cordilleran orogenic systems, like alternations between shortening and extension in the upper plate. Studies of arc migration may help to link irregular magmatic production in continental arcs with geodynamic models for orogenic cyclicity. 

   more » « less
4. A Deep Learning-Based Real-time Seizure Detection System

   https://doi.org/10.1109/SPMB50085.2020.9353623  

   Shawki, N. ; Elseify, T. ; Cap, T. ; Shah, V. ; Obeid, I. ; Picone, J. ( December 2020 , Proceedings of the IEEE Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology Symposium (SPMB))

   Obeid, Iyad Selesnick (Ed.)

   Electroencephalography (EEG) is a popular clinical monitoring tool used for diagnosing brain-related disorders such as epilepsy [1]. As monitoring EEGs in a critical-care setting is an expensive and tedious task, there is a great interest in developing real-time EEG monitoring tools to improve patient care quality and efficiency [2]. However, clinicians require automatic seizure detection tools that provide decisions with at least 75% sensitivity and less than 1 false alarm (FA) per 24 hours [3]. Some commercial tools recently claim to reach such performance levels, including the Olympic Brainz Monitor [4] and Persyst 14 [5]. In this abstract, we describe our efforts to transform a high-performance offline seizure detection system [3] into a low latency real-time or online seizure detection system. An overview of the system is shown in Figure 1. The main difference between an online versus offline system is that an online system should always be causal and has minimum latency which is often defined by domain experts. The offline system, shown in Figure 2, uses two phases of deep learning models with postprocessing [3]. The channel-based long short term memory (LSTM) model (Phase 1 or P1) processes linear frequency cepstral coefficients (LFCC) [6] features from each EEG channel separately. We use the hypotheses generated by the P1 model and create additional features that carry information about the detected events and their confidence. The P2 model uses these additional features and the LFCC features to learn the temporal and spatial aspects of the EEG signals using a hybrid convolutional neural network (CNN) and LSTM model. Finally, Phase 3 aggregates the results from both P1 and P2 before applying a final postprocessing step. The online system implements Phase 1 by taking advantage of the Linux piping mechanism, multithreading techniques, and multi-core processors. To convert Phase 1 into an online system, we divide the system into five major modules: signal preprocessor, feature extractor, event decoder, postprocessor, and visualizer. The system reads 0.1-second frames from each EEG channel and sends them to the feature extractor and the visualizer. The feature extractor generates LFCC features in real time from the streaming EEG signal. Next, the system computes seizure and background probabilities using a channel-based LSTM model and applies a postprocessor to aggregate the detected events across channels. The system then displays the EEG signal and the decisions simultaneously using a visualization module. The online system uses C++, Python, TensorFlow, and PyQtGraph in its implementation. The online system accepts streamed EEG data sampled at 250 Hz as input. The system begins processing the EEG signal by applying a TCP montage [8]. Depending on the type of the montage, the EEG signal can have either 22 or 20 channels. To enable the online operation, we send 0.1-second (25 samples) length frames from each channel of the streamed EEG signal to the feature extractor and the visualizer. Feature extraction is performed sequentially on each channel. The signal preprocessor writes the sample frames into two streams to facilitate these modules. In the first stream, the feature extractor receives the signals using stdin. In parallel, as a second stream, the visualizer shares a user-defined file with the signal preprocessor. This user-defined file holds raw signal information as a buffer for the visualizer. The signal preprocessor writes into the file while the visualizer reads from it. Reading and writing into the same file poses a challenge. The visualizer can start reading while the signal preprocessor is writing into it. To resolve this issue, we utilize a file locking mechanism in the signal preprocessor and visualizer. Each of the processes temporarily locks the file, performs its operation, releases the lock, and tries to obtain the lock after a waiting period. The file locking mechanism ensures that only one process can access the file by prohibiting other processes from reading or writing while one process is modifying the file [9]. The feature extractor uses circular buffers to save 0.3 seconds or 75 samples from each channel for extracting 0.2-second or 50-sample long center-aligned windows. The module generates 8 absolute LFCC features where the zeroth cepstral coefficient is replaced by a temporal domain energy term. For extracting the rest of the features, three pipelines are used. The differential energy feature is calculated in a 0.9-second absolute feature window with a frame size of 0.1 seconds. The difference between the maximum and minimum temporal energy terms is calculated in this range. Then, the first derivative or the delta features are calculated using another 0.9-second window. Finally, the second derivative or delta-delta features are calculated using a 0.3-second window [6]. The differential energy for the delta-delta features is not included. In total, we extract 26 features from the raw sample windows which add 1.1 seconds of delay to the system. We used the Temple University Hospital Seizure Database (TUSZ) v1.2.1 for developing the online system [10]. The statistics for this dataset are shown in Table 1. A channel-based LSTM model was trained using the features derived from the train set using the online feature extractor module. A window-based normalization technique was applied to those features. In the offline model, we scale features by normalizing using the maximum absolute value of a channel [11] before applying a sliding window approach. Since the online system has access to a limited amount of data, we normalize based on the observed window. The model uses the feature vectors with a frame size of 1 second and a window size of 7 seconds. We evaluated the model using the offline P1 postprocessor to determine the efficacy of the delayed features and the window-based normalization technique. As shown by the results of experiments 1 and 4 in Table 2, these changes give us a comparable performance to the offline model. The online event decoder module utilizes this trained model for computing probabilities for the seizure and background classes. These posteriors are then postprocessed to remove spurious detections. The online postprocessor receives and saves 8 seconds of class posteriors in a buffer for further processing. It applies multiple heuristic filters (e.g., probability threshold) to make an overall decision by combining events across the channels. These filters evaluate the average confidence, the duration of a seizure, and the channels where the seizures were observed. The postprocessor delivers the label and confidence to the visualizer. The visualizer starts to display the signal as soon as it gets access to the signal file, as shown in Figure 1 using the “Signal File” and “Visualizer” blocks. Once the visualizer receives the label and confidence for the latest epoch from the postprocessor, it overlays the decision and color codes that epoch. The visualizer uses red for seizure with the label SEIZ and green for the background class with the label BCKG. Once the streaming finishes, the system saves three files: a signal file in which the sample frames are saved in the order they were streamed, a time segmented event (TSE) file with the overall decisions and confidences, and a hypotheses (HYP) file that saves the label and confidence for each epoch. The user can plot the signal and decisions using the signal and HYP files with only the visualizer by enabling appropriate options. For comparing the performance of different stages of development, we used the test set of TUSZ v1.2.1 database. It contains 1015 EEG records of varying duration. The any-overlap performance [12] of the overall system shown in Figure 2 is 40.29% sensitivity with 5.77 FAs per 24 hours. For comparison, the previous state-of-the-art model developed on this database performed at 30.71% sensitivity with 6.77 FAs per 24 hours [3]. The individual performances of the deep learning phases are as follows: Phase 1’s (P1) performance is 39.46% sensitivity and 11.62 FAs per 24 hours, and Phase 2 detects seizures with 41.16% sensitivity and 11.69 FAs per 24 hours. We trained an LSTM model with the delayed features and the window-based normalization technique for developing the online system. Using the offline decoder and postprocessor, the model performed at 36.23% sensitivity with 9.52 FAs per 24 hours. The trained model was then evaluated with the online modules. The current performance of the overall online system is 45.80% sensitivity with 28.14 FAs per 24 hours. Table 2 summarizes the performances of these systems. The performance of the online system deviates from the offline P1 model because the online postprocessor fails to combine the events as the seizure probability fluctuates during an event. The modules in the online system add a total of 11.1 seconds of delay for processing each second of the data, as shown in Figure 3. In practice, we also count the time for loading the model and starting the visualizer block. When we consider these facts, the system consumes 15 seconds to display the first hypothesis. The system detects seizure onsets with an average latency of 15 seconds. Implementing an automatic seizure detection model in real time is not trivial. We used a variety of techniques such as the file locking mechanism, multithreading, circular buffers, real-time event decoding, and signal-decision plotting to realize the system. A video demonstrating the system is available at: https://www.isip.piconepress.com/projects/nsf_pfi_tt/resources/videos/realtime_eeg_analysis/v2.5.1/video_2.5.1.mp4. The final conference submission will include a more detailed analysis of the online performance of each module. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Research reported in this publication was most recently supported by the National Science Foundation Partnership for Innovation award number IIP-1827565 and the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Universal Research Enhancement Program (PA CURE). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official views of any of these organizations. REFERENCES [1] A. Craik, Y. He, and J. L. Contreras-Vidal, “Deep learning for electroencephalogram (EEG) classification tasks: a review,” J. Neural Eng., vol. 16, no. 3, p. 031001, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-2552/ab0ab5. [2] A. C. Bridi, T. Q. Louro, and R. C. L. Da Silva, “Clinical Alarms in intensive care: implications of alarm fatigue for the safety of patients,” Rev. Lat. Am. Enfermagem, vol. 22, no. 6, p. 1034, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1590/0104-1169.3488.2513. [3] M. Golmohammadi, V. Shah, I. Obeid, and J. Picone, “Deep Learning Approaches for Automatic Seizure Detection from Scalp Electroencephalograms,” in Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology: Emerging Trends in Research and Applications, 1st ed., I. Obeid, I. Selesnick, and J. Picone, Eds. New York, New York, USA: Springer, 2020, pp. 233–274. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-36844-9_8. [4] “CFM Olympic Brainz Monitor.” [Online]. Available: https://newborncare.natus.com/products-services/newborn-care-products/newborn-brain-injury/cfm-olympic-brainz-monitor. [Accessed: 17-Jul-2020]. [5] M. L. Scheuer, S. B. Wilson, A. Antony, G. Ghearing, A. Urban, and A. I. Bagic, “Seizure Detection: Interreader Agreement and Detection Algorithm Assessments Using a Large Dataset,” J. Clin. Neurophysiol., 2020. https://doi.org/10.1097/WNP.0000000000000709. [6] A. Harati, M. Golmohammadi, S. Lopez, I. Obeid, and J. Picone, “Improved EEG Event Classification Using Differential Energy,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology Symposium, 2015, pp. 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1109/SPMB.2015.7405421. [7] V. Shah, C. Campbell, I. Obeid, and J. Picone, “Improved Spatio-Temporal Modeling in Automated Seizure Detection using Channel-Dependent Posteriors,” Neurocomputing, 2021. [8] W. Tatum, A. Husain, S. Benbadis, and P. Kaplan, Handbook of EEG Interpretation. New York City, New York, USA: Demos Medical Publishing, 2007. [9] D. P. Bovet and C. Marco, Understanding the Linux Kernel, 3rd ed. O’Reilly Media, Inc., 2005. https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/understanding-the-linux/0596005652/. [10] V. Shah et al., “The Temple University Hospital Seizure Detection Corpus,” Front. Neuroinform., vol. 12, pp. 1–6, 2018. https://doi.org/10.3389/fninf.2018.00083. [11] F. Pedregosa et al., “Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python,” J. Mach. Learn. Res., vol. 12, pp. 2825–2830, 2011. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/1953048.2078195. [12] J. Gotman, D. Flanagan, J. Zhang, and B. Rosenblatt, “Automatic seizure detection in the newborn: Methods and initial evaluation,” Electroencephalogr. Clin. Neurophysiol., vol. 103, no. 3, pp. 356–362, 1997. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0013-4694(97)00003-9. 

   more » « less
5. Domain Sparsification of Discrete Distributions Using Entropic Independence

   Anari, Nima ; Derezinski, Michal ; Vuong, Thuy-Duong ; Yang, Elizabeth ( January 2022 , Leibniz international proceedings in informatics)

   Braverman, Mark (Ed.)

   We present a framework for speeding up the time it takes to sample from discrete distributions $\mu$ defined over subsets of size $k$ of a ground set of $n$ elements, in the regime where $k$ is much smaller than $n$. We show that if one has access to estimates of marginals $\mathbb{P}_{S\sim \mu}[i\in S]$, then the task of sampling from $\mu$ can be reduced to sampling from related distributions $\nu$ supported on size $k$ subsets of a ground set of only $n^{1-\alpha}\cdot \operatorname{poly}(k)$ elements. Here, $1/\alpha\in [1, k]$ is the parameter of entropic independence for $\mu$. Further, our algorithm only requires sparsified distributions $\nu$ that are obtained by applying a sparse (mostly $0$) external field to $\mu$, an operation that for many distributions $\mu$ of interest, retains algorithmic tractability of sampling from $\nu$. This phenomenon, which we dub domain sparsification, allows us to pay a one-time cost of estimating the marginals of $\mu$, and in return reduce the amortized cost needed to produce many samples from the distribution $\mu$, as is often needed in upstream tasks such as counting and inference. For a wide range of distributions where $\alpha=\Omega(1)$, our result reduces the domain size, and as a corollary, the cost-per-sample, by a $\operatorname{poly}(n)$ factor. Examples include monomers in a monomer-dimer system, non-symmetric determinantal point processes, and partition-constrained Strongly Rayleigh measures. Our work significantly extends the reach of prior work of Anari and Derezi\'nski who obtained domain sparsification for distributions with a log-concave generating polynomial (corresponding to $\alpha=1$). As a corollary of our new analysis techniques, we also obtain a less stringent requirement on the accuracy of marginal estimates even for the case of log-concave polynomials; roughly speaking, we show that constant-factor approximation is enough for domain sparsification, improving over $O(1/k)$ relative error established in prior work. 

   more » « less