skip to main content
Explore Scholarly Publications and Datasets in the NSF-PAR

  • NSF Public Access
  • Search Results
  • Accepted Manuscript: Deep Learning Movement Intent Decoders Trained with Dataset Aggregation for Prosthetic Limb Control
Title: Deep Learning Movement Intent Decoders Trained with Dataset Aggregation for Prosthetic Limb Control
Significance: The performance of traditional approaches to decoding movement intent from electromyograms (EMGs) and other biological signals commonly degrade over time. Furthermore, conventional algorithms for training neural network-based decoders may not perform well outside the domain of the state transitions observed during training. The work presented in this paper mitigates both these problems, resulting in an approach that has the potential to substantially he quality of live of people with limb loss. Objective: This paper presents and evaluates the performance of four decoding methods for volitional movement intent from intramuscular EMG signals. Methods: The decoders are trained using dataset aggregation (DAgger) algorithm, in which the training data set is augmented during each training iteration based on the decoded estimates from previous iterations. Four competing decoding methods: polynomial Kalman filters (KFs), multilayer perceptron (MLP) networks, convolution neural networks (CNN), and Long-Short Term Memory (LSTM) networks, were developed. The performance of the four decoding methods was evaluated using EMG data sets recorded from two human volunteers with transradial amputation. Short-term analyses, in which the training and cross-validation data came from the same data set, and long-term analyses training and testing were done in different data sets, were performed. Results: Short-term analyses of more » the decoders demonstrated that CNN and MLP decoders performed significantly better than KF and LSTM decoders, showing an improvement of up to 60% in the normalized mean-square decoding error in cross-validation tests. Long-term analysis indicated that the CNN, MLP and LSTM decoders performed significantly better than KF-based decoder at most analyzed cases of temporal separations (0 to 150 days) between the acquisition of the training and testing data sets. Conclusion: The short-term and long-term performance of MLP and CNN-based decoders trained with DAgger, demonstrated their potential to provide more accurate and naturalistic control of prosthetic hands than alternate approaches. « less
Authors:
; ; ; ; ;
Award ID(s):
1533649
Publication Date:
NSF-PAR ID:
10121183
Journal Name:
IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering
Volume:
0
Issue:
0
Page Range or eLocation-ID:
1 to 1
ISSN:
0018-9294
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ( , Journal of Neural Engineering)
    Abstract Objective . Neural decoding is an important tool in neural engineering and neural data analysis. Of various machine learning algorithms adopted for neural decoding, the recently introduced deep learning is promising to excel. Therefore, we sought to apply deep learning to decode movement trajectories from the activity of motor cortical neurons. Approach . In this paper, we assessed the performance of deep learning methods in three different decoding schemes, concurrent, time-delay, and spatiotemporal. In the concurrent decoding scheme where the input to the network is the neural activity coincidental to the movement, deep learning networks including artificial neural network (ANN) and long-short term memory (LSTM) were applied to decode movement and compared with traditional machine learning algorithms. Both ANN and LSTM were further evaluated in the time-delay decoding scheme in which temporal delays are allowed between neural signals and movements. Lastly, in the spatiotemporal decoding scheme, we trained convolutional neural network (CNN) to extract movement information from images representing the spatial arrangement of neurons, their activity, and connectomes (i.e. the relative strengths of connectivity between neurons) and combined CNN and ANN to develop a hybrid spatiotemporal network. To reveal the input features of the CNN in the hybrid networkmore »that deep learning discovered for movement decoding, we performed a sensitivity analysis and identified specific regions in the spatial domain. Main results . Deep learning networks (ANN and LSTM) outperformed traditional machine learning algorithms in the concurrent decoding scheme. The results of ANN and LSTM in the time-delay decoding scheme showed that including neural data from time points preceding movement enabled decoders to perform more robustly when the temporal relationship between the neural activity and movement dynamically changes over time. In the spatiotemporal decoding scheme, the hybrid spatiotemporal network containing the concurrent ANN decoder outperformed single-network concurrent decoders. Significance . Taken together, our study demonstrates that deep learning could become a robust and effective method for the neural decoding of behavior.« less
  2. ; ; ; ; ; ( , 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 EEGmore »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.« less
  3. ; ; ; ; ; ( , Journal of Neural Engineering)
    Abstract

    Objective.High-density electromyography (HD-EMG) decomposition algorithms are used to identify individual motor unit (MU) spike trains, which collectively constitute the neural code of movements, to predict motor intent. This approach has advanced from offline to online decomposition, from isometric to dynamic contractions, leading to a wide range of neural-machine interface applications. However, current online methods need offline retraining when applied to the same muscle on a different day or to a different person, which limits their applications in a real-time neural-machine interface. We proposed a deep convolutional neural network (CNN) framework for neural drive estimation, which takes in frames of HD-EMG signals as input, extracts general spatiotemporal properties of MU action potentials, and outputs the number of spikes in each frame. The deep CNN can generalize its application without retraining to HD-EMG data recorded in separate sessions, muscles, or participants.Approach.We recorded HD-EMG signals from the vastus medialis and vastus lateralis muscles from five participants while they performed isometric contractions during two sessions separated by ∼20 months. We identified MU spike trains from HD-EMG signals using a convolutive blind source separation (BSS) method, and then used the cumulative spike train (CST) of these MUs and the HD-EMG signals to train andmore »validate the deep CNN.Main results.On average, the correlation coefficients between CST from the BSS and that from deep CNN were0.983±0.006for leave-one-out across-sessions-and-muscles validation and0.989±0.002for leave-one-out across-participants validation. When trained with more than four datasets, the performance of deep CNN saturated at0.984±0.001for cross validations across muscles, sessions, and participants.Significance.We can conclude that the deep CNN is generalizable across the aforementioned conditions without retraining. We could potentially generate a robust deep CNN to estimate neural drive to muscles for neural-machine interfaces.

    « less
  4. ( , 27th European Signal Processing Conference, EUSIPCO 2019)
    This paper presents an adaptive learning algorithm for predicting movement intent using electromyogram (EMG) signals and controlling a prosthetic arm. The adaptive decoder enables use of the prosthetic systems for long periods of time without the necessity to retrain them. The method of this paper employs a neural network-based decoder and we present a method to update its parameters during the operation phase. Initially, the decoder parameters are estimated during a training phase. During the normal operation, the parameters of the algorithm are updated in a semi-supervised manner based on a movement model. The results presented here, obtained from a single amputee subject, suggest that the approach of this paper improves long-term performance of the decoders over the current state-of-the-art with statistical significance.
  5. ; ; ; ( , Sensors)
    Tremor is one of the main symptoms of Parkinson’s Disease (PD) that reduces the quality of life. Tremor is measured as part of the Unified Parkinson Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) part III. However, the assessment is based on onsite physical examinations and does not fully represent the patients’ tremor experience in their day-to-day life. Our objective in this paper was to develop algorithms that, combined with wearable sensors, can estimate total Parkinsonian tremor as the patients performed a variety of free body movements. We developed two methods: an ensemble model based on gradient tree boosting and a deep learning model based on long short-term memory (LSTM) networks. The developed methods were assessed on gyroscope sensor data from 24 PD subjects. Our analysis demonstrated that the method based on gradient tree boosting provided a high correlation (r = 0.96 using held-out testing and r = 0.93 using subject-based, leave-one-out cross-validation) between the estimated and clinically assessed tremor subscores in comparison to the LSTM-based method with a moderate correlation (r = 0.84 using held-out testing and r = 0.77 using subject-based, leave-one-out cross-validation). These results indicate that our approach holds great promise in providing a full spectrum of the patients’ tremor frommore »continuous monitoring of the subjects’ movement in their natural environment.« less
  • Citation Formats
  • MLA
  • APA
  • Chicago
  • BibTeX
  • Save / Share this Record
  • Send to Email