More Like this

1. Mobile brain imaging in butoh dancers: from rehearsals to public performance

   https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.02.26.530087  

   Theofanopoulou, Constantina ; Paez, Sadye ; Huber, Derek ; Todd, Eric ; Ramírez-Moreno, Mauricio A ; Khaleghian, Badie ; Sánchez, Alberto Muñoz ; Barceló, Leah ; Gand, Vangeline ; Contreras-Vidal, José L ( February 2023 , bioRxiv)

   Dissecting the neurobiology of dance would shed light on a complex, yet ubiquitous, form of human communication. In this experiment, we sought to study, via mobile electroencephalography (EEG), the brain activity of five experienced dancers while dancing butoh, a postmodern dance that originated in Japan. We report the experimental design, methods, and practical execution of a highly interdisciplinary project that required the collaboration of dancers, engineers, neuroscientists, musicians, and multimedia artists, among others. We explain in detail how we technically validated all our EEG procedures (e.g., via impedance value monitoring) and how we minimized potential artifacts in our recordings (e.g., via electrooculography and inertial measurement units). We also describe the engineering details and hardware that enabled us to achieve synchronization between signals recorded in different sampling frequencies, and a signal preprocessing and denoising pipeline that we have used to re-sample our data and remove power line noise. As our experiment culminated in a live performance, where we generated a real-time visualization of the dancers’ interbrain synchrony on a screen via an artistic brain-computer interface, we outline all the methodology (e.g., filtering, time-windows, equation) we used for online bispectrum estimations. We also share all the raw EEG data and codes we used in our recordings. We, lastly, describe how we envision that the data could be used to address several hypotheses, such as that of interbrain synchrony or the motor theory of vocal learning. Being, to our knowledge, the first study to report synchronous and simultaneous recording from five dancers, we expect that our findings will inform future art-science collaborations, as well as dance-movement therapies.

    

   more » « 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 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
3. Computational tools for inversion and uncertainty estimation in respirometry

   https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0251926  

   Cho, Taewon ; Pendar, Hodjat ; Chung, Julianne ( May 2021 , PLOS ONE)

   Mariño, Inés P. (Ed.)

   In many physiological systems, real-time endogeneous and exogenous signals in living organisms provide critical information and interpretations of physiological functions; however, these signals or variables of interest are not directly accessible and must be estimated from noisy, measured signals. In this paper, we study an inverse problem of recovering gas exchange signals of animals placed in a flow-through respirometry chamber from measured gas concentrations. For large-scale experiments (e.g., long scans with high sampling rate) that have many uncertainties (e.g., noise in the observations or an unknown impulse response function), this is a computationally challenging inverse problem. We first describe various computational tools that can be used for respirometry reconstruction and uncertainty quantification when the impulse response function is known. Then, we address the more challenging problem where the impulse response function is not known or only partially known. We describe nonlinear optimization methods for reconstruction, where both the unknown model parameters and the unknown signal are reconstructed simultaneously. Numerical experiments show the benefits and potential impacts of these methods in respirometry. 

   more » « less
4. A First Look at the Security of EEG-based Systems and Intelligent Algorithms under Physical Signal Injections

   Md Imran Hossen, Yazhou Tu ( July 2023 , Proceedings of the 2023 Secure and Trustworthy Deep Learning Systems Workshop (SecTL ’23))

   Electroencephalography (EEG) based systems utilize machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL) models in various applications such as seizure detection, emotion recognition, cognitive workload estimation, and brain-computer interface (BCI). However, the security and robustness of such intelligent systems under analog-domain threats have received limited attention. This paper presents the first demonstration of physical signal injection attacks on ML and DL models utilizing EEG data. We investigate how an adversary can degrade the performance of different models by non-invasively injecting signals into EEG recordings. We show that the attacks can mislead or manipulate the models and diminish the reliability of EEG-based systems. Overall, this research sheds light on the need for more trustworthy physiological-signal-based intelligent systems in the healthcare field and opens up avenues for future work. 

   more » « less
5. Optimization of Electrode Configuration for the Removal of Eye Artifacts with Adaptive Noise Cancellation

   Gonzalez-Espana, Jose J. ; Craik, Alexander ; Ramirez, Carolina ; Alamir, Ayman ; and Contreras-Vidal, Jose ( October 2023 , 2023 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC))

   Scalp electroencephalography (EEG) is a neural source signal that is extensively used in neuroengineering due to its non-invasive nature and ease of collection. However, a drawback to the use of EEG is the prevalence of physiological artifacts generated by eye movements and eye blinks that contaminate the brain signals. Previously, we have proposed and validated an H ∞ -based Adaptive Noise Cancellation (ANC) technique for the real-time identification, learning and removal of eye blinks, eye motions, amplitude drifts and recording biases from EEG simultaneously. However, the standard electroocu- lography (EOG) electrode configuration requires four elec- trodes for EOG measurement, which limits its applicability for reduced-channel mobile applications, such as brain-computer interfaces (BCI). Here, we assess multiple configurations with varying number of EOG electrodes and compare the ANC effectiveness of these configurations to the ideal four-electrode configuration. From an analysis of the root mean squared error (RMSE) and differences in signal to noise ratios (SNR) between the ideal four-electrode case and the alternative configurations, it is reported that several three-electrode alternative configu- rations were effective in essentially replicating the ability to remove EOG artifacts in an experimental cohort of ten healthy subjects. For nine subjects, it was shown that only two to three EOG electrodes were needed to achieve similar performance as compared to the four-electrode case. This study demonstrates that the typical four-electrode configuration for EOG recordings for adaptive noise cancellation of ocular artifacts may not be necessary; by using the proposed new EOG configurations it is possible to improve electrode allocation efficiency for EOG measurements in mobile EEG applications. 

   more » « less