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. Bio-mimetic high-speed target localization with fused frame and event vision for edge application

   https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2022.1010302  

   Lele, Ashwin Sanjay ; Fang, Yan ; Anwar, Aqeel ; Raychowdhury, Arijit ( November 2022 , Frontiers in Neuroscience)

   Evolution has honed predatory skills in the natural world where localizing and intercepting fast-moving prey is required. The current generation of robotic systems mimics these biological systems using deep learning. High-speed processing of the camera frames using convolutional neural networks (CNN) (frame pipeline) on such constrained aerial edge-robots gets resource-limited. Adding more compute resources also eventually limits the throughput at the frame rate of the camera as frame-only traditional systems fail to capture the detailed temporal dynamics of the environment. Bio-inspired event cameras and spiking neural networks (SNN) provide an asynchronous sensor-processor pair (event pipeline) capturing the continuous temporal details of the scene for high-speed but lag in terms of accuracy. In this work, we propose a target localization system combining event-camera and SNN-based high-speed target estimation and frame-based camera and CNN-driven reliable object detection by fusing complementary spatio-temporal prowess of event and frame pipelines. One of our main contributions involves the design of an SNN filter that borrows from the neural mechanism for ego-motion cancelation in houseflies. It fuses the vestibular sensors with the vision to cancel the activity corresponding to the predator's self-motion. We also integrate the neuro-inspired multi-pipeline processing with task-optimized multi-neuronal pathway structure in primates and insects. The system is validated to outperform CNN-only processing using prey-predator drone simulations in realistic 3D virtual environments. The system is then demonstrated in a real-world multi-drone set-up with emulated event data. Subsequently, we use recorded actual sensory data from multi-camera and inertial measurement unit (IMU) assembly to show desired working while tolerating the realistic noise in vision and IMU sensors. We analyze the design space to identify optimal parameters for spiking neurons, CNN models, and for checking their effect on the performance metrics of the fused system. Finally, we map the throughput controlling SNN and fusion network on edge-compatible Zynq-7000 FPGA to show a potential 264 outputs per second even at constrained resource availability. This work may open new research directions by coupling multiple sensing and processing modalities inspired by discoveries in neuroscience to break fundamental trade-offs in frame-based computer vision 1 . 

   more » « less
3. An Efficient 3D CNN for Action/Object Segmentation in Video

   Hour, Rui ; Chen, Chen ; Sukthankar, Rahul ; Shah, Mubarak ( January 2019 , British Machine Vision Conference 2019)

   null (Ed.)

   Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) based image segmentation has made great progress in recent years. However, video object segmentation remains a challenging task due to its high computational complexity. Most of the previous methods employ a two-stream CNN framework to handle spatial and motion features separately. In this paper, we propose an end-to-end encoder-decoder style 3D CNN to aggregate spatial and temporal information simultaneously for video object segmentation. To efficiently process video, we propose 3D separable convolution for the pyramid pooling module and decoder, which dramatically reduces the number of operations while maintaining the performance. Moreover, we also extend our framework to video action segmentation by adding an extra classifier to predict the action label for actors in videos. Extensive experiments on several video datasets demonstrate the superior performance of the proposed approach for action and object segmentation compared to the state-of-the-art. 

   more » « less
4. 0-MMS: Zero-Shot Multi-Motion Segmentation With A Monocular Event Camera

   https://doi.org/10.1109/ICRA48506.2021.9561755  

   Parameshwara, Chethan M. ; Sanket, Nitin J. ; Singh, Chahat Deep ; Fermuller, Cornelia ; Aloimonos, Yiannis ( January 2021 , 2021 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA))

   Segmentation of moving objects in dynamic scenes is a key process in scene understanding for navigation tasks. Classical cameras suffer from motion blur in such scenarios rendering them effete. On the contrary, event cameras, because of their high temporal resolution and lack of motion blur, are tailor-made for this problem. We present an approach for monocular multi-motion segmentation, which combines bottom-up feature tracking and top-down motion compensation into a unified pipeline, which is the first of its kind to our knowledge. Using the events within a time-interval, our method segments the scene into multiple motions by splitting and merging. We further speed up our method by using the concept of motion propagation and cluster keyslices.The approach was successfully evaluated on both challenging real-world and synthetic scenarios from the EV-IMO, EED, and MOD datasets and outperformed the state-of-the-art detection rate by 12%, achieving a new state-of-the-art average detection rate of 81.06%, 94.2% and 82.35% on the aforementioned datasets. To enable further research and systematic evaluation of multi-motion segmentation, we present and open-source a new dataset/benchmark called MOD++, which includes challenging sequences and extensive data stratification in-terms of camera and object motion, velocity magnitudes, direction, and rotational speeds. 

   more » « less
5. EV-IMO: Motion Segmentation Dataset and Learning Pipeline for Event Cameras

   https://doi.org/10.1109/IROS40897.2019.8968520  

   Mitrokhin, Anton ; Ye, Chengxi Ye ; Fermüller, Cornelia ; Aloimonos, Yiannis ; Delbruck, Tobi ( November 2019 , IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS))

   We present the first event-based learning approach for motion segmentation in indoor scenes and the first event-based dataset – EV-IMO – which includes accurate pixel-wise motion masks, egomotion and ground truth depth. Our approach is based on an efficient implementation of the SfM learning pipeline using a low parameter neural network architecture on event data. In addition to camera egomotion and a dense depth map, the network estimates independently moving object segmentation at the pixel-level and computes per-object 3D translational velocities of moving objects. We also train a shallow network with just 40k parameters, which is able to compute depth and egomotion. Our EV-IMO dataset features 32 minutes of indoor recording with up to 3 fast moving objects in the camera field of view. The objects and the camera are tracked using a VICON motion capture system. By 3D scanning the room and the objects, ground truth of the depth map and pixel-wise object masks are obtained. We then train and evaluate our learning pipeline on EV-IMO and demonstrate that it is well suited for scene constrained robotics applications. 

   more » « less