skip to main content


Title: Surface Registration with Eigenvalues and Eigenvectors
This paper presents a novel surface registration technique using the spectrum of the shapes, which can facilitate accurate localization and visualization of non-isometric deformations of the surfaces. In order to register two surfaces, we map both eigenvalues and eigenvectors of the Laplace-Beltrami of the shapes through optimizing an energy function. The function is defined by the integration of a smoothness term to align the eigenvalues and a distance term between the eigenvectors at feature points to align the eigenvectors. The feature points are generated using the static points of certain eigenvectors of the surfaces. By using both the eigenvalues and the eigenvectors on these feature points, the computational efficiency is improved considerably without losing the accuracy in comparison to the approaches that use the eigenvectors for all vertices. In our technique, the variation of the shape is expressed using a scale function defined at each vertex. Consequently, the total energy function to align the two given surfaces can be defined using the linear interpolation of the scale function derivatives. Through the optimization of the energy function, the scale function can be solved and the alignment is achieved. After the alignment, the eigenvectors can be employed to calculate the point-to-point correspondence of the surfaces. Therefore, the proposed method can accurately define the displacement of the vertices. We evaluate our method by conducting experiments on synthetic and real data using hippocampus, heart, and hand models. We also compare our method with non-rigid Iterative Closest Point (ICP) and a similar spectrum-based methods. These experiments demonstrate the advantages and accuracy of our method  more » « less
Award ID(s):
1657364 1845962 1816511
NSF-PAR ID:
10097943
Author(s) / Creator(s):
; ; ;
Date Published:
Journal Name:
IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics
ISSN:
1941-0506
Format(s):
Medium: X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. This paper presents a novel surface registration technique using the spectrum of the shapes, which can facilitate accurate localization and visualization of non-isometric deformations of the surfaces. In order to register two surfaces, we map both eigenvalues and eigenvectors of the Laplace-Beltrami of the shapes through optimizing an energy function. The function is defined by the integration of a smoothness term to align the eigenvalues and a distance term between the eigenvectors at feature points to align the eigenvectors. The feature points are generated using the static points of certain eigenvectors of the surfaces. By using both the eigenvalues and the eigenvectors on these feature points, the computational efficiency is improved considerably without losing the accuracy in comparison to the approaches that use the eigenvectors for all vertices. After the alignment, the eigenvectors can be employed to calculate the point-to-point correspondence of the surfaces. Therefore, the proposed method can accurately define the displacement of the vertices. We evaluate our method by conducting experiments on synthetic and real data using hippocampus, heart, and hand models. We also compare our method with non-rigid ICP and a similar spectrum-based methods. These experiments demonstrate the advantages and accuracy of our method. 
    more » « less
  2. The Gromov-Wasserstein (GW) formalism can be seen as a generalization of the optimal transport (OT) formalism for comparing two distributions associated with different metric spaces. It is a quadratic optimization problem and solving it usually has computational costs that can rise sharply if the problem size exceeds a few hundred points. Recently fast techniques based on entropy regularization have being developed to solve an approximation of the GW problem quickly. There are issues, however, with the numerical convergence of those regularized approximations to the true GW solution. To circumvent those issues, we introduce a novel strategy to solve the discrete GW problem using methods taken from statistical physics. We build a temperature-dependent free energy function that reflects the GW problem’s constraints. To account for possible differences of scales between the two metric spaces, we introduce a scaling factor s in the definition of the energy. From the extremum of the free energy, we derive a mapping between the two probability measures that are being compared, as well as a distance between those measures. This distance is equal to the GW distance when the temperature goes to zero. The optimal scaling factor itself is obtained by minimizing the free energy with respect to s. We illustrate our approach on the problem of comparing shapes defined by unstructured triangulations of their surfaces. We use several synthetic and “real life” datasets. We demonstrate the accuracy and automaticity of our approach in non-rigid registration of shapes. We provide numerical evidence that there is a strong correlation between the GW distances computed from low-resolution, surface-based representations of proteins and the analogous distances computed from atomistic models of the same proteins. 
    more » « less
  3. Analytic perturbation theory for matrices and operators is an immensely useful mathematical technique. Most elementary introductions to this method have their background in the physics literature, and quantum mechanics in particular. In this note, we give an introduction to this method that is independent of any physics notions, and relies purely on concepts from linear algebra. An additional feature of this presentation is that matrix notation and methods are used throughout. In particular, we formulate the equations for each term of the analytic expansions of eigenvalues and eigenvectors as {\em matrix equations}, namely Sylvester equations in particular. Solvability conditions and explicit expressions for solutions of such matrix equations are given, and expressions for each term in the analytic expansions are given in terms of those solutions. This unified treatment simplifies somewhat the complex notation that is commonly seen in the literature, and in particular, provides relatively compact expressions for the non-Hermitian and degenerate cases, as well as for higher order terms. 
    more » « less
  4. 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. Eighteen successful diffusion couple experiments in 8-component SiO2–TiO2–Al2O3–FeO–MgO–CaO–Na2O–K2O basaltic melts were conducted at 1260°C and 0.5 GPa and at 1500°C and 1.0 GPa. These experiments are combined with previous data at 1350°C and 1.0 GPa (Guo and Zhang, 2018) to study the temperature dependence of multicomponent diffusion in basaltic melts. Effective binary diffusion coefficients of components with monotonic diffusion profiles were extracted and show a strong dependence on their counter-diffusing component even though the average (or interface) compositions are the same. The diffusion matrix at 1260°C was obtained by simultaneously fitting diffusion profiles of all diffusion couple experiments as well as appropriate data from the literature. All features of concentration profiles in both diffusion couples and mineral dissolution are well reproduced by this new diffusion matrix. At 1500°C, only diffusion couple experiments are used to obtain the diffusion matrix. Eigenvectors of the diffusion matrix are used to discuss the diffusion (exchange) mechanism, and eigenvalues characterize the diffusion rate. Diffusion mechanisms at both 1260 and 1500°C are inferred from eigenvectors of diffusion matrices and compared with those at 1350°C reported in Guo and Zhang (2018). There is indication that diffusion eigenvectors in basaltic melts do not depend much on temperature, but complexity is present for some eigenvectors. The two slowest eigenvectors involve the exchange of SiO2 and/or Al2O3 with nonalkalis. The third slowest eigenvector is due to the exchange of divalent oxides with other oxides. The fastest eigenvector is due to the exchange of Na2O with other oxide components. Some eigenvalues differ from each other by less than 1/3, and their eigenvectors are less well defined. We define small difference in eigenvalues as near degeneracy. In strict mathematical degeneracy, eigenvectors are not uniquely defined because any linear combination of two eigenvectors is also an eigenvector. In the case of near degeneracy, more constraints either in terms of higher data quality or more experiments are needed to resolve the eigenvectors. We made a trial effort to generate a set of average eigenvectors, which are assumed to be constant as temperature varies. The corresponding eigenvalues are roughly Arrhenian. Thus, the temperature-dependent diffusion matrix can be roughly predicted. The method is applied to predict experimental diffusion profiles in basaltic melts during olivine and anorthite dissolution at ~1400°C with preliminary success. We further applied our diffusion matrix to investigate multicomponent diffusion during magma mixing in the Bushveld Complex and found such diffusion may result in an increased likelihood of sulfide and Fe-Ti oxide mineralization. 
    more » « less