More Like this

1. 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
2. Tracking Multiple Ground Objects Using a Team of Unmanned Air Vehicles

   Sakamaki J.Y., Beard R.W. ( January 2017 , Lecture notes in control and information sciences)

   This paper proposes a system architecture for tracking multiple ground-based objects using a team of unmanned air systems (UAS). In the architecture pipeline, video data is processed by each UAS to detect motion in the image frame. The ground-based location of the detected motion is estimated using a geolocation algorithm. The subsequent data points are then process by the recently introduced Recursive RANSAC (R-RANSASC) algorithm to produce a set of tracks. These tracks are then communicated over the network and the error in the coordinate frames between vehicles must be estimated. After the tracks have been placed in the same coordinate frame, a track-to-track association algorithm is used to determine which tracks in each camera correspond to tracks in other cameras. Associated tracks are then fused using a distributed information filter. The proposed method is demonstrated on data collected from two multi-rotors tracking a person walking on the ground. 

   more » « less
3. Towards Dynamic Crowd Mobility Learning and Meta Model Updates for A Smart Connected Campus

   Yang, X. ; He, S. ; Tabatabaie, M. ; Wang, B. ( October 2022 , International Conference on Embedded Wireless Systems and Networks EWSN)

   In this paper, we propose MetaMobi, a novel spatio-temporal multi-dots connectivity-aware modeling and Meta model update approach for crowd Mobility learning. MetaMobi analyzes real-world Wi-Fi association data collected from our campus wireless infrastructure, with the goal towards enabling a smart connected campus. Specifically, MetaMobi aims at addressing the following two major challenges with existing crowd mobility sensing system designs: (a) how to handle the spatially, temporally, and contextually varying features in large-scale human crowd mobility distributions; and (b) how to adapt to the impacts of such crowd mobility patterns as well as the dynamic changes in crowd sensing infrastructures. To handle the first challenge, we design a novel multi-dots connectivity-aware learning approach, which jointly learns the crowd flow time series of multiple buildings with fusion of spatial graph connectivities and temporal attention mechanisms. Furthermore, to overcome the adaptivity issues due to changes in the crowd sensing infrastructures (e.g., installation of new ac- cess points), we further design a novel meta model update approach with Bernoulli dropout, which mitigates the over- fitting behaviors of the model given few-shot distributions of new crowd mobility datasets. Extensive experimental evaluations based on the real-world campus wireless dataset (including over 76 million Wi-Fi association and disassociation records) demonstrate the accuracy, effectiveness, and adaptivity of MetaMobi in forecasting the campus crowd flows, with 30% higher accuracy compared to the state-of-the-art approaches. 

   more » « less
4. Using photographs and deep neural networks to understand flowering phenology and diversity in mountain meadows

   https://doi.org/10.1002/rse2.382  

   John, Aji ; Theobald, Elli J. ; Cristea, Nicoleta ; Tan, Amanda ; Hille Ris Lambers, Janneke ( February 2024 , Remote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation)

   Mountain meadows are an essential part of the alpine–subalpine ecosystem; they provide ecosystem services like pollination and are home to diverse plant communities. Changes in climate affect meadow ecology on multiple levels, for example, by altering growing season dynamics. Tracking the effects of climate change on meadow diversity through the impacts on individual species and overall growing season dynamics is critical to conservation efforts. Here, we explore how to combine crowd‐sourced camera images with machine learning to quantify flowering species richness across a range of elevations in alpine meadows located in Mt. Rainier National Park, Washington, USA. We employed three machine‐learning techniques (Mask R‐CNN, RetinaNet and YOLOv5) to detect wildflower species in images taken during two flowering seasons. We demonstrate that deep learning techniques can detect multiple species, providing information on flowering richness in photographed meadows. The results indicate higher richness just above the tree line for most of the species, which is comparable with patterns found using field studies. We found that the two‐stage detector Mask R‐CNN was more accurate than single‐stage detectors like RetinaNet and YOLO, with the Mask R‐CNN network performing best overall with mean average precision (mAP) of 0.67 followed by RetinaNet (0.5) and YOLO (0.4). We found that across the methods using anchor box variations in multiples of 16 led to enhanced accuracy. We also show that detection is possible even when pictures are interspersed with complex backgrounds and are not in focus. We found differential detection rates depending on species abundance, with additional challenges related to similarity in flower characteristics, labeling errors and occlusion issues. Despite these potential biases and limitations in capturing flowering abundance and location‐specific quantification, accuracy was notable considering the complexity of flower types and picture angles in this dataset. We, therefore, expect that this approach can be used to address many ecological questions that benefit from automated flower detection, including studies of flowering phenology and floral resources, and that this approach can, therefore, complement a wide range of ecological approaches (e.g., field observations, experiments, community science, etc.). In all, our study suggests that ecological metrics like floral richness can be efficiently monitored by combining machine learning with easily accessible publicly curated datasets (e.g., Flickr, iNaturalist).

    

   more » « less
5. Forecasting Time-to-Collision from Monocular Video: Feasibility, Dataset, and Challenges

   https://doi.org/10.1109/IROS40897.2019.8967730  

   Manglik, Aashi ; Weng, Xinshuo ; Ohn-Bar, Eshed ; Kitanil, Kris M. ( November 2019 , 2019 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS))

   We explore the possibility of using a single monocular camera to forecast the time to collision between a suitcase-shaped robot being pushed by its user and other nearby pedestrians. We develop a purely image-based deep learning approach that directly estimates the time to collision without the need of relying on explicit geometric depth estimates or velocity information to predict future collisions. While previous work has focused on detecting immediate collision in the context of navigating Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, the detection was limited to a binary variable (i.e., collision or no collision). We propose a more fine-grained approach to collision forecasting by predicting the exact time to collision in terms of milliseconds, which is more helpful for collision avoidance in the context of dynamic path planning. To evaluate our method, we have collected a novel dataset of over 13,000 indoor video segments each showing a trajectory of at least one person ending in a close proximity (a near collision) with the camera mounted on a mobile suitcase-shaped platform. Using this dataset, we do extensive experimentation on different temporal windows as input using an exhaustive list of state-of-the-art convolutional neural networks (CNNs). Our results show that our proposed multi-stream CNN is the best model for predicting time to near-collision. The average prediction error of our time to near-collision is 0.75 seconds across the test videos. The project webpage can be found at https://aashi7.github.io/NearCollision.html. 

   more » « less