More Like this

1. Deep Learning Movement Intent Decoders Trained with Dataset Aggregation for Prosthetic Limb Control

   https://doi.org/10.1109/TBME.2019.2901882  

   Dantas, Henrique ; Warren, David J. ; Wendelken, Suzanne ; Davis, Tyler ; Clark, Gregory A. ; Mathews, V. John ( July 2019 , IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering)

   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 ofmore »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
2. 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 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. Energy-Efficient Data Transfer Optimization via Decision-Tree Based Uncertainty Reduction

   https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCCN54977.2022.9868866  

   Jamil, Hasibul ; Rodolph, Lavone ; Goldverg, Jacob ; Kosar, Tevfik ( July 2022 , 2022 International Conference on Computer Communications and Networks (ICCCN))

   The increase and rapid growth of data produced by scientific instruments, the Internet of Things (IoT), and social media is causing data transfer performance and resource consumption to garner much attention in the research community. The network infrastructure and end systems that enable this extensive data movement use a substantial amount of electricity, measured in terawatt-hours per year. Managing energy consumption within the core networking infrastructure is an active research area, but there is a limited amount of work on reducing power consumption at the end systems during active data transfers. This paper presents a novel two-phase dynamic throughput and energy optimization model that utilizes an offline decision-search-tree based clustering technique to encapsulate and categorize historical data transfer log information and an online search optimization algorithm to find the best application and kernel layer parameter combination to maximize the achieved data transfer throughput while minimizing the energy consumption. Our model also incorporates an ensemble method to reduce aleatoric uncertainty in finding optimal application and kernel layer parameters during the offline analysis phase. The experimental evaluation results show that our decision-tree based model outperforms the state-of-the-art solutions in this area by achieving 117% higher throughput on average and also consuming 19%more »less energy at the end systems during active data transfers.« less
4. SCI : A Bayesian adaptive phase I/ II dose‐finding design accounting for semi‐competing risks outcomes for immunotherapy trials

   https://doi.org/10.1002/pst.2209  

   Zhang, Yifei ; Guo, Beibei ; Cao, Sha ; Zhang, Chi ; Zang, Yong ( January 2022 , Pharmaceutical Statistics)

   An immunotherapy trial often uses the phase I/II design to identify the optimal biological dose, which monitors the efficacy and toxicity outcomes simultaneously in a single trial. The progression-free survival rate is often used as the efficacy outcome in phase I/II immunotherapy trials. As a result, patients developing disease progression in phase I/II immunotherapy trials are generally seriously ill and are often treated off the trial for ethical consideration. Consequently, the happening of disease progression will terminate the toxicity event but not vice versa, so the issue of the semi-competing risks arises. Moreover, this issue can become more intractable with the late-onset outcomes, which happens when a relatively long follow-up time is required to ascertain progression-free survival. This paper proposes a novel Bayesian adaptive phase I/II design accounting for semi-competing risks outcomes for immunotherapy trials, referred to as the dose-finding design accounting for semi-competing risks outcomes for immunotherapy trials (SCI) design. To tackle the issue of the semi-competing risks in the presence of late-onset outcomes, we re-construct the likelihood function based on each patient's actual follow-up time and develop a data augmentation method to efficiently draw posterior samples from a series of Beta-binomial distributions. We propose a concise curve-free dose-findingmore »algorithm to adaptively identify the optimal biological dose using accumulated data without making any parametric dose–response assumptions. Numerical studies show that the proposed SCI design yields good operating characteristics in dose selection, patient allocation, and trial duration.« less
5. SECO: A Scalable Accuracy Approximate Exponential Function Via Cross-Layer Optimization

   https://doi.org/10.1109/ISLPED.2019.8824959  

   Wu, Di ; Chen, Tianen ; Chen, Chienfu ; Ahia, Oghenefego ; Miguel, Joshua San ; Lipasti, Mikko ; Kim, Younghyun ( July 2019 , 2019 IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Low Power Electronics and Design (ISLPED))

   From signal processing to emerging deep neural networks, a range of applications exhibit intrinsic error resilience. For such applications, approximate computing opens up new possibilities for energy-efficient computing by producing slightly inaccurate results using greatly simplified hardware. Adopting this approach, a variety of basic arithmetic units, such as adders and multipliers, have been effectively redesigned to generate approximate results for many error-resilient applications.In this work, we propose SECO, an approximate exponential function unit (EFU). Exponentiation is a key operation in many signal processing applications and more importantly in spiking neuron models, but its energy-efficient implementation has been inadequately explored. We also introduce a cross-layer design method for SECO to optimize the energy-accuracy trade-off. At the algorithm level, SECO offers runtime scaling between energy efficiency and accuracy based on approximate Taylor expansion, where the error is minimized by optimizing parameters using discrete gradient descent at design time. At the circuit level, our error analysis method efficiently explores the design space to select the energy-accuracy-optimal approximate multiplier at design time. In tandem, the cross-layer design and runtime optimization method are able to generate energy-efficient and accurate approximate EFU designs that are up to 99.7% accurate at a power consumption of 3.73 pJmore »per exponential operation. SECO is also evaluated on the adaptive exponential integrate-and-fire neuron model, yielding only 0.002% timing error and 0.067% value error compared to the precise neuron model.« less