More Like this

1. Effect of Illumination on Human Drone Interaction Tasks: An Exploratory Study

   https://doi.org/10.1177/1071181321651123  

   Ozkan Yerebakan, Mustafa ; Hao, Shuai ; Xu, Kun ; Gheisari, Masoud ; Jeelani, Idris ; Hu, Boyi ( September 2021 , Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting)

   With recent changes by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) opening the possibility of more areas for drones to be used, such as delivery, there will be increasingly more intera ctions between humans and drones soon. Although current human drone interaction (HDI) investigate what factors are necessary for safe interactions, very few has focused on drone illumination. Therefore, in this study, we explored how illumination affects users’ perception of the drone through a distance perception task. Data analysis did not indicate any significant effects in the normal distance estimation task for illumination or distance conditions. However, most participants underestimated the distance in the normal distance estimation task and indicated that the LED drone was closer when it wa s illuminated during the relative distance estimation task, even though the drones were equidistant. In future studies, factors such as the weather conditions, lighting patterns, and height of the drone will be explored. 

   more » « less
2. RNN Classification of Spectral EEG/EMG Data Associated with Facial Movements for Drone Control

   Alba Flores, Akintomide Adebile ( April 2023 , Proceedings from IEEE SouthEastcon)

   IEEE (Ed.)

   This research involves developing a drone control system that functions by relating EEG and EMG from the forehead to different facial movements using recurrent neural networks (RNN) such as long-short term memory (LSTM) and gated recurrent Unit (GRU). As current drone control methods are largely limited to handheld devices, regular operators are actively engaged while flying and cannot perform any passive control. Passive control of drones would prove advantageous in various applications as drone operators can focus on additional tasks. The advantages of the chosen methods and those of some alternative system designs are discussed. For this research, EEG signals were acquired at three frontal cortex locations (fp1, fpz , fp2 ) using electrodes from an OpenBCI headband and observed for patterns of Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) frequency-amplitude distributions. Five different facial expressions were repeated while recording EEG signals of 0-60Hz frequencies with two reference electrodes placed on both earlobes. EMG noise received during EEG measurements was not filtered away but was observed to be minimal. A dataset was first created for the actions done, and later categorized by a mean average error (MAE), a statistical error deviation analysis and then classified with both an LSTM and GRU neural network by relating FFT amplitudes to the actions. On average, the LSTM network had classification accuracy of 78.6%, and the GRU network had a classification accuracy of 81.8%. 

   more » « less
3. Manipulating Drone Position Control

   https://doi.org/10.1109/CNS.2019.8802817  

   Chen, Wenxin ; Dong, Yingfei ; Duan, Zhenhai ( June 2019 , 2019 IEEE Conference on Communications and Network Security (CNS))

   Although consumer drones have been used in many attacks, besides specific methods such as jamming, very little research has been conducted on systematical methods to counter these drones. In this paper, we develop generic methods to compromise drone position control algorithms in order to make malicious drones deviate from their targets. Taking advantage of existing methods to remotely manipulate drone sensors through cyber or physical attacks (e.g., [1], [2]), we exploited the weaknesses of position estimation and autopilot controller algorithms on consumer drones in the proposed attacks. For compromising drone position control, we first designed two state estimation attacks: a maximum False Data Injection (FDI) attack and a generic FDI attack that compromised the Kalman-Filter-based position estimation (arguably the most popular method). Furthermore, based on the above attacks, we proposed two attacks on autopilot-based navigation, to compromise the actual position of a malicious drone. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first piece of work in this area. Our analysis and simulation results show that the proposed attacks can significantly affect the position estimation and the actual positions of drones. We also proposed potential countermeasures to address these attacks. 

   more » « less
4. 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
5. Implementation of an Artificial Immune System to Mitigate Cybersecurity Threats in Unmanned Aerial Systems

   https://doi.org/10.1109/ICII.2019.00013  

   Shivers, Meagan ; Llanes, Christian ; Sherman, Maxwell ( November 2019 , IEEE International Workshop on Sensing, Communication, and Control for Unmanned Aerial Systems)

   he pervasive operation of customer drones, or small-scale unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), has raised serious concerns about their privacy threats to the public. In recent years, privacy invasion events caused by customer drones have been frequently reported. Given such a fact, timely detection of invading drones has become an emerging task. Existing solutions using active radar, video or acoustic sensors are usually too costly (especially for individuals) or exhibit various constraints (e.g., requiring visual line of sight). Recent research on drone detection with passive RF signals provides an opportunity for low-cost deployment of drone detectors on commodity wireless devices. However, the state of the arts in this direction rely on line-of-sight (LOS) RF signals, which makes them only work under very constrained conditions. The support of more common scenarios, i.e., non-line-of-sight (NLOS), is still missing for low-cost solutions. In this paper, we propose a novel detection system for privacy invasion caused by customer drone. Our system is featured with accurate NLOS detection with low-cost hardware (under $50). By exploring and validating the relationship between drone motions and RF signal under the NLOS condition, we find that RF signatures of drones are somewhat “amplified” by multipaths in NLOS. Based on this observation, we design a two-step solution which first classifies received RSS measurements into LOS and NLOS categories; deep learning is then used to extract the signatures and ultimately detect the drones. Our experimental results show that LOS and NLOS signals can be identified at accuracy rates of 98.4% and 96% respectively. Our drone detection rate for NLOS condition is above 97% with a system implemented using Raspberry PI 3 B+. 

   more » « less