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. The Performance of LSTM and BiLSTM in Forecasting Time Series

   https://doi.org/10.1109/BigData47090.2019.9005997  

   Siami-Namini, Sima ; Tavakoli, Neda ; Namin, Akbar Siami ( December 2019 , 2019 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big Data))

   Machine and deep learning-based algorithms are the emerging approaches in addressing prediction problems in time series. These techniques have been shown to produce more accurate results than conventional regression-based modeling. It has been reported that artificial Recurrent Neural Networks (RNN) with memory, such as Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM), are superior compared to Autoregressive Integrated Moving Average (ARIMA) with a large margin. The LSTM-based models incorporate additional “gates” for the purpose of memorizing longer sequences of input data. The major question is that whether the gates incorporated in the LSTM architecture already offers a good prediction and whether additional training of data would be necessary to further improve the prediction. Bidirectional LSTMs (BiLSTMs) enable additional training by traversing the input data twice (i.e., 1) left-to-right, and 2) right-to-left). The research question of interest is then whether BiLSTM, with additional training capability, outperforms regular unidirectional LSTM. This paper reports a behavioral analysis and comparison of BiLSTM and LSTM models. The objective is to explore to what extend additional layers of training of data would be beneficial to tune the involved parameters. The results show that additional training of data and thus BiLSTM-based modeling offers better predictions than regular LSTM-based models. More specifically, it was observed that BiLSTM models provide better predictions compared to ARIMA and LSTM models. It was also observed that BiLSTM models reach the equilibrium much slower than LSTM-based models. 

   more » « less
3. Adversarial Audio Attacks that Evade Temporal Dependency

   https://doi.org/10.1109/SSCI47803.2020.9308597  

   Liu, Heng ; Ditzler, Gregory ( December 2020 , IEEE Symposium Series on Computational Intelligence (SSCI))

   As the real-world applications (image segmentation, speech recognition, machine translation, etc.) are increasingly adopting Deep Neural Networks (DNNs), DNN's vulnerabilities in a malicious environment have become an increasingly important research topic in adversarial machine learning. Adversarial machine learning (AML) focuses on exploring vulnerabilities and defensive techniques for machine learning models. Recent work has shown that most adversarial audio generation methods fail to consider audios' temporal dependency (TD) (i.e., adversarial audios exhibit weaker TD than benign audios). As a result, the adversarial audios are easily detectable by examining their TD. Therefore, one area of interest in the audio AML community is to develop a novel attack that evades a TD-based detection model. In this contribution, we revisit the LSTM model for audio transcription and propose a new audio attack algorithm that evades the TD-based detection by explicitly controlling the TD in generated adversarial audios. The experimental results show that the detectability of our adversarial audio is significantly reduced compared to the state-of-the-art audio attack algorithms. Furthermore, experiments also show that our adversarial audios remain nearly indistinguishable from benign audios with only negligible perturbation magnitude. 

   more » « less
4. NeuroVectorizer: end-to-end vectorization with deep reinforcement learning

   https://doi.org/10.1145/3368826.3377928  

   Haj-Ali, Ameer ; Ahmed, Nesreen K. ; Willke, Ted ; Shao, Yakun Sophia ; Asanovic, Krste ; Stoica, Ion ( February 2020 , CGO 2020: Proceedings of the 18th ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Code Generation and Optimization)

   null (Ed.)

   One of the key challenges arising when compilers vectorize loops for today’s SIMD-compatible architectures is to decide if vectorization or interleaving is beneficial. Then, the compiler has to determine the number of instructions to pack together and the interleaving level (stride). Compilers are designed today to use fixed-cost models that are based on heuristics to make vectorization decisions on loops. However, these models are unable to capture the data dependency, the computation graph, or the organization of instructions. Alternatively, software engineers often hand-write the vectorization factors of every loop. This, however, places a huge burden on them, since it requires prior experience and significantly increases the development time. In this work, we explore a novel approach for handling loop vectorization and propose an end-to-end solution using deep reinforcement learning (RL). We conjecture that deep RL can capture different instructions, dependencies, and data structures to enable learning a sophisticated model that can better predict the actual performance cost and determine the optimal vectorization factors. We develop an end-to-end framework, from code to vectorization, that integrates deep RL in the LLVM compiler. Our proposed framework takes benchmark codes as input and extracts the loop codes. These loop codes are then fed to a loop embedding generator that learns an embedding for these loops. Finally, the learned embeddings are used as input to a Deep RL agent, which dynamically determines the vectorization factors for all the loops. We further extend our framework to support random search, decision trees, supervised neural networks, and nearest-neighbor search. We evaluate our approaches against the currently used LLVM vectorizer and loop polyhedral optimization techniques. Our experiments show 1.29×−4.73× performance speedup compared to baseline and only 3% worse than the brute-force search on a wide range of benchmarks. 

   more » « less
5. Deep learning for neural decoding in motor cortex

   https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-2552/ac8fb5  

   Liu, Fangyu ; Meamardoost, Saber ; Gunawan, Rudiyanto ; Komiyama, Takaki ; Mewes, Claudia ; Zhang, Ying ; Hwang, EunJung ; Wang, Linbing ( September 2022 , 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 network 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. 

   more » « less