More Like this

1. THE ACTUATION SPECTRUM OF SPATIOTEMPORAL NETWORKS WITH POWER-LAW TIME DEPENDENCIES

   https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219525919500231  

   CAO, QI ; RAMOS, GUILHERME ; BOGDAN, PAUL ; PEQUITO, SÉRGIO ( November 2019 , Advances in Complex Systems)

   The ability to steer the state of a dynamical network towards a desired state within a time horizon is intrinsically dependent on the number of driven nodes considered, as well as the network’s topology. The trade-off between time-to-control and the minimum number of driven nodes is captured by the notion of the actuation spectrum (AS). We study the actuation spectra of a variety of artificial and real-world networked systems, modeled by fractional-order dynamics that are capable of capturing non-Markovian time properties with power-law dependencies. We find evidence that, in both types of networks, the actuation spectra are similar when the time-to-control is less or equal to about 1/5 of the size of the network. Nonetheless, for a time-to-control larger than the network size, the minimum number of driven nodes required to attain controllability in networks with fractional-order dynamics may still decrease in comparison with other networks with Markovian properties. These differences suggest that the minimum number of driven nodes can be used to determine the true dynamical nature of the network. Furthermore, such differences also suggest that new generative models are required to reproduce the actuation spectra of real fractional-order dynamical networks.
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. Waveform detection by deep learning reveals multi-area spindles that are selectively modulated by memory load

   https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.75769  

   Mofrad, Maryam H ; Gilmore, Greydon ; Koller, Dominik ; Mirsattari, Seyed M ; Burneo, Jorge G ; Steven, David A ; Khan, Ali R ; Suller Marti, Ana ; Muller, Lyle ( June 2022 , eLife)

   The brain processes memories as we sleep, generating rhythms of electrical activity called ‘sleep spindles’. Sleep spindles were long thought to be a state where the entire brain was fully synchronized by this rhythm. This was based on EEG recordings, short for electroencephalogram, a technique that uses electrodes on the scalp to measure electrical activity in the outermost layer of the brain, the cortex. But more recent intracranial recordings of people undergoing brain surgery have challenged this idea and suggested that sleep spindles may not be a state of global brain synchronization, but rather localised to specific areas. Mofrad et al. sought to clarify the extent to which spindles co-occur at multiple sites in the brain, which could shed light on how networks of neurons coordinate memory storage during sleep. To analyse highly variable brain wave recordings, Mofrad et al. adapted deep learning algorithms initially developed for detecting earthquakes and gravitational waves. The resulting algorithm, designed to more sensitively detect spindles amongst other brain activity, was then applied to a range of sleep recordings from humans and macaque monkeys. The analyses revealed that widespread and complex patterns of spindle rhythms, spanning multiple areas in the cortex of the brain, actuallymore »appear much more frequently than previously thought. This finding was consistent across all the recordings analysed, even recordings under the skull, which provide the clearest window into brain circuits. Further analyses found that these multi-area spindles occurred more often in sleep after people had completed tasks that required holding many visual scenes in memory, as opposed to control conditions with fewer visual scenes. In summary, Mofrad et al. show that neuroscientists had previously not appreciated the complex and dynamic patterns in this sleep rhythm. These patterns in sleep spindles may be able to adapt based on the demands needed for memory storage, and this will be the subject of future work. Moreover, the findings support the idea that sleep spindles help coordinate the consolidation of memories in brain circuits that stretch across the cortex. Understanding this mechanism may provide insights into how memory falters in aging and sleep-related diseases, such as Alzheimer’s disease. Lastly, the algorithm developed by Mofrad et al. stands to be a useful tool for analysing other rhythmic waveforms in noisy recordings.« less
4. Topological clustering of multilayer networks

   https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2019994118  

   Yuvaraj, Monisha ; Dey, Asim K. ; Lyubchich, Vyacheslav ; Gel, Yulia R. ; Poor, H. Vincent ( May 2021 , Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences)

   Multilayer networks continue to gain significant attention in many areas of study, particularly due to their high utility in modeling interdependent systems such as critical infrastructures, human brain connectome, and socioenvironmental ecosystems. However, clustering of multilayer networks, especially using the information on higher-order interactions of the system entities, still remains in its infancy. In turn, higher-order connectivity is often the key in such multilayer network applications as developing optimal partitioning of critical infrastructures in order to isolate unhealthy system components under cyber-physical threats and simultaneous identification of multiple brain regions affected by trauma or mental illness. In this paper, we introduce the concepts of topological data analysis to studies of complex multilayer networks and propose a topological approach for network clustering. The key rationale is to group nodes based not on pairwise connectivity patterns or relationships between observations recorded at two individual nodes but based on how similar in shape their local neighborhoods are at various resolution scales. Since shapes of local node neighborhoods are quantified using a topological summary in terms of persistence diagrams, we refer to the approach as clustering using persistence diagrams (CPD). CPD systematically accounts for the important heterogeneous higher-order properties of node interactions within andmore »in-between network layers and integrates information from the node neighbors. We illustrate the utility of CPD by applying it to an emerging problem of societal importance: vulnerability zoning of residential properties to weather- and climate-induced risks in the context of house insurance claim dynamics.

   « less
5. Structure-based approach to identifying small sets of driver nodes in biological networks

   https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0080843  

   Newby, Eli ; Tejeda Zañudo, Jorge Gómez ; Albert, Réka ( June 2022 , Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science)

   In network control theory, driving all the nodes in the Feedback Vertex Set (FVS) by node-state override forces the network into one of its attractors (long-term dynamic behaviors). The FVS is often composed of more nodes than can be realistically manipulated in a system; for example, only up to three nodes can be controlled in intracellular networks, while their FVS may contain more than 10 nodes. Thus, we developed an approach to rank subsets of the FVS on Boolean models of intracellular networks using topological, dynamics-independent measures. We investigated the use of seven topological prediction measures sorted into three categories—centrality measures, propagation measures, and cycle-based measures. Using each measure, every subset was ranked and then evaluated against two dynamics-based metrics that measure the ability of interventions to drive the system toward or away from its attractors: To Control and Away Control. After examining an array of biological networks, we found that the FVS subsets that ranked in the top according to the propagation metrics can most effectively control the network. This result was independently corroborated on a second array of different Boolean models of biological networks. Consequently, overriding the entire FVS is not required to drive a biological network tomore »one of its attractors, and this method provides a way to reliably identify effective FVS subsets without the knowledge of the network dynamics.« less