skip to main content


Title: Regulation of arousal via online neurofeedback improves human performance in a demanding sensory-motor task

Our state of arousal can significantly affect our ability to make optimal decisions, judgments, and actions in real-world dynamic environments. The Yerkes–Dodson law, which posits an inverse-U relationship between arousal and task performance, suggests that there is a state of arousal that is optimal for behavioral performance in a given task. Here we show that we can use online neurofeedback to shift an individual’s arousal from the right side of the Yerkes–Dodson curve to the left toward a state of improved performance. Specifically, we use a brain–computer interface (BCI) that uses information in the EEG to generate a neurofeedback signal that dynamically adjusts an individual’s arousal state when they are engaged in a boundary-avoidance task (BAT). The BAT is a demanding sensory-motor task paradigm that we implement as an aerial navigation task in virtual reality and which creates cognitive conditions that escalate arousal and quickly results in task failure (e.g., missing or crashing into the boundary). We demonstrate that task performance, measured as time and distance over which the subject can navigate before failure, is significantly increased when veridical neurofeedback is provided. Simultaneous measurements of pupil dilation and heart-rate variability show that the neurofeedback indeed reduces arousal. Our work demonstrates a BCI system that uses online neurofeedback to shift arousal state and increase task performance in accordance with the Yerkes–Dodson law.

 
more » « less
NSF-PAR ID:
10087953
Author(s) / Creator(s):
; ; ;
Publisher / Repository:
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Date Published:
Journal Name:
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Volume:
116
Issue:
13
ISSN:
0027-8424
Page Range / eLocation ID:
p. 6482-6490
Format(s):
Medium: X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. 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
  2. A central challenge in password security is to characterize the attacker's guessing curve i.e., what is the probability that the attacker will crack a random user's password within the first G guesses. A key challenge is that the guessing curve depends on the attacker's guessing strategy and the distribution of user passwords both of which are unknown to us. In this work we aim to follow Kerckhoffs's principal and analyze the performance of an optimal attacker who knows the password distribution. Let \lambda_G denote the probability that such an attacker can crack a random user's password within G guesses. We develop several statistically rigorous techniques to upper and lower bound \lambda_G given N independent samples from the unknown password distribution P. We show that our upper/lower bounds on \lambda_G hold with high confidence and we apply our techniques to analyze eight large password datasets. Our empirical analysis shows that even state-of-the-art password cracking models are often significantly less guess efficient than an attacker who can optimize its attack based on its (partial) knowledge of the password distribution. We also apply our statistical tools to re-examine different models of the password distribution i.e., the empirical password distribution and Zipf's Law. We find that the empirical distribution closely matches our upper/lower bounds on \lambda_G when the guessing number G is not too large i.e., G << N. However, for larger values of G our empirical analysis rigorously demonstrates that the empirical distribution (resp. Zipf's Law) overestimates the attacker's success rate. We apply our statistical techniques to upper/lower bound the effectiveness of password throttling mechanisms (key-stretching) which are used to reduce the number of attacker guesses G. Finally, if we are willing to make an additional assumption about the way users respond to password restrictions, we can use our statistical techniques to evaluate the effectiveness of various password composition policies which restrict the passwords that users may select. 
    more » « less
  3. Electroencephalogram (EEG) signals are often used as an input modality for Brain Computer Interfaces (BCIs). While EEG signals can be beneficial for numerous types of interaction scenarios in the real world, high levels of noise limits their usage to strictly noise-controlled environments such as a research laboratory. Even in a controlled environment, EEG is susceptible to noise, particularly from user motion, making it highly challenging to use EEG, and consequently BCI, as a ubiquitous user interaction modality. In this work, we address the EEG noise/artifact correction problem. Our goal is to detect physiological artifacts in EEG signal and automatically replace the detected artifacts with imputed values to enable robust EEG sensing overall requiring significantly reduced manual effort than is usual. We present a novel EEG state-based imputation model built upon a recurrent neural network, which we call SRI-EEG, and evaluate the proposed method on three publicly available EEG datasets. From quantitative and qualitative comparisons with six conventional and neural network based approaches, we demonstrate that our method achieves comparable performance to the state-of-the-art methods on the EEG artifact correction task. 
    more » « less
  4. This paper introduces DISPERSE, a distributed scalable architecture for delivery of content and services that provides resilience against node failure through location-independent storage and replication of content. Current content delivery networks (CDNs) have, at least to some degree, a centralized structure thus susceptible to a single point of failure. DISPERSE addresses this limitation by implementing a fully de-centralized structure. DISPERSE is a two-layer architecture: the first layer (front-end layer) exposes services (e.g., Web, SFTP) to clients; the second layer (back-end layer) provides reliable distributed storage of content and application state. Content in DISPERSE's back-end layer is stored and exchanged as Named Data Network (NDN) content objects. This allows DISPERSE to implement fine-grained, location-independent, fully decentralized content replication mechanisms. We validate the performance of DISPERSE under two node failure scenarios. In the first scenario, content can be stored in any DISPERSE node, and all nodes are equally likely to fail. In this scenario, we use non-linear optimization techniques to determine the optimal number of content copies under availability and latency constraints. In the second scenario, different nodes fail with different probabilities, and content is stored in nodes according to its value, node failure probability, and resource availability. This scenario is addressed as an instance of the minimum cost flow problem. Our results show that DISPERSE reduces the failure of content retrieval by five orders of magnitude compared to common CDN implementations, without significantly increasing content retrieval delay. Further, numerical results show that DISPERSE improves content availability by a factor of 1.3x-2.3x when deploying the minimum cost flow algorithm. 
    more » « less
  5. Brain-computer interface (BCI) actively translates the brain signals into executable actions by establishing direct communication between the human brain and external devices. Recording brain activity through electroencephalography (EEG) is generally contaminated with both physiological and nonphysiological artifacts, which significantly hinders the BCI performance. Artifact subspace reconstruction (ASR) is a well-known statistical technique that automatically removes artifact components by determining the rejection threshold based on the initial reference EEG segment in multichannel EEG recordings. In real-world applications, the fixed threshold may limit the efficacy of the artifact correction, especially when the quality of the reference data is poor. This study proposes an adaptive online ASR technique by integrating the Hebbian/anti-Hebbian neural networks into the ASR algorithm, namely, principle subspace projection ASR (PSP-ASR) and principal subspace whitening ASR (PSW-ASR) that segmentwise self-organize the artifact subspace by updating the synaptic weights according to the Hebbian and anti-Hebbian learning rules. The effectiveness of the proposed algorithm is compared to the conventional ASR approaches on benchmark EEG dataset and three BCI frameworks, including steady-state visual evoked potential (SSVEP), rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP), and motor imagery (MI) by evaluating the root-mean-square error (RMSE), the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), the Pearson correlation, and classification accuracy. The results demonstrated that the PSW-ASR algorithm effectively removed the EEG artifacts and retained the activity-specific brain signals compared to the PSP-ASR, standard ASR (Init-ASR), and moving-window ASR (MW-ASR) methods, thereby enhancing the SSVEP, RSVP, and MI BCI performances. Finally, our empirical results from the PSW-ASR algorithm suggested the choice of an aggressive cutoff range of c = 1-10 for activity-specific BCI applications and a moderate range of for the benchmark dataset and general BCI applications. 
    more » « less