More Like this

1. Extracting Individual Respiratory Signatures from Combined Multi-Subject Mixtures with Varied Breathing Pattern Using Independent Component Analysis with the JADE Algorithm

   https://doi.org/10.1109/APMC47863.2020.9331715  

   Islam, Shekh M. ; Lubecke, Victor M. ( December 2020 , 2020 IEEE Asia-Pacific Microwave Conference (APMC))

   null (Ed.)

   Concurrent respiration monitoring of multiple subjects remains a challenge in microwave Doppler radar-based non-contact physiological sensing technology. Prior research using Independent component analysis with the JADE algorithm has been limited to the separation of respiratory signatures for normal breathing patterns. This paper investigates the feasibility of using the ICA-JADE algorithm with a 24-GHz phase comparison monopulse radar transceiver for separating respiratory signatures from combined mixtures of varied breathing patterns. Normal, fast, and slow breathing pattern variations likely to occur due to physiological activity, and emotional stress were used as a basis for assessing separation robustness. Experimental results showed efficacy for recognition of three different breathing patterns, and isolation of respiratory signatures with an accuracy of100% for normal breathing, 92% for slow breathing, and 83.78% for fast breathing using ICA-JADE. Breathing pattern variations were observed to affect the signal-to-noise ratio through multiple mechanisms, decreasing with an increase in the number of breathing cycles and associated motion artifacts. Additionally, for removing motion artifacts of fast breathing pattern empirical mode decomposition (EMD) is employed, and for slow breathing pattern, increasing the breathing cycles helps to achieve an accuracy of 89.2% and 94.5% respectively. 

   more » « less
2. Incorporation of Digital Modulation into Vital Sign Detection and Gesture Recognition Using Multimode Radar Systems

   https://doi.org/10.3390/s23187675  

   Brown, Michael C. ; Li, Changzhi ( September 2023 , Sensors)

   The incorporation of digital modulation into radar systems poses various challenges in the field of radar design, but it also offers a potential solution to the shrinking availability of low-noise operating environments as the number of radar applications increases. Additionally, digital systems have reached a point where available components and technology can support higher speeds than ever before. These advancements present new avenues for radar design, in which digitally controlled phase-modulated continuous wave (PMCW) radar systems can look to support multiple collocated radar systems with low radar-radar interference. This paper proposes a reconfigurable PMCW radar for use in vital sign detection and gesture recognition while utilizing digital carrier modulation and compares the radar responses of various modulation schemes. Binary sequences are used to introduce phase modulation to the carrier wave by use of a field programable gate array (FPGA), allowing for flexibility in the modulation speed and binary sequence. Experimental results from the radar demonstrate the differences between CW and PMCW modes when measuring the respiration rate of a human subject and in gesture detection. 

   more » « less
3. Identity Authentication in Two-Subject Environments Using Microwave Doppler Radar and Machine Learning Classifiers

   https://doi.org/10.1109/TMTT.2022.3197413  

   Islam, Shekh M. ; Boric-Lubecke, Olga ; Lubecke, Victor M. ( August 2022 , IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques)

   Identity authentication based on Doppler radar respiration sensing is gaining attention as it requires neither contact nor line of sight and does not give rise to privacy concerns associated with video imaging. Prior research demonstrating the recognition of individuals has been limited to isolated single subject scenarios. When two equidistant subjects are present, identification is more challenging due to the interference of respiration motion patterns in the reflected radar signal. In this research, respiratory signature separation techniques are functionally combined with machine learning (ML) classifiers for reliable subject identity authentication. An improved version of the dynamic segmentation algorithm (peak search and triangulation) was proposed, which can extract distinguishable airflow profile-related features (exhale area, inhale area, inhale/exhale speed, and breathing depth) for medium-scale experiments of 20 different participants to examine the feasibility of extraction of an individual’s respiratory features from a combined mixture of motions for subjects. Independent component analysis with the joint approximation of diagonalization of eigenmatrices (ICA-JADE) algorithm was employed to isolate individual respiratory signatures from combined mixtures of breathing patterns. The extracted hyperfeature sets were then evaluated by integrating two different popular ML classifiers, k-nearest neighbor (KNN) and support vector machine (SVM), for subject authentication. Accuracies of 97.5% for two-subject experiments and 98.33% for single-subject experiments were achieved, which supersedes the performance of prior reported methods. The proposed identity authentication approach has several potential applications, including security/surveillance, the Internet-of- Things (IoT) applications, virtual reality, and health monitoring. 

   more » « less
4. Direction Finding and Likelihood Ratio Detection for Oceanographic HF Radars

   https://doi.org/10.1175/JTECH-D-21-0110.1  

   Emery, Brian ; Kirincich, Anthony ; Washburn, Libe ( February 2022 , Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology)

   Abstract Previous work with simulations of oceanographic high-frequency (HF) radars has identified possible improvements when using maximum likelihood estimation (MLE) for direction of arrival; however, methods for determining the number of emitters (here defined as spatially distinct patches of the ocean surface) have not realized these improvements. Here we describe and evaluate the use of the likelihood ratio (LR) for emitter detection, demonstrating its application to oceanographic HF radar data. The combined detection–estimation methods MLE-LR are compared with multiple signal classification method (MUSIC) and MUSIC parameters for SeaSonde HF radars, along with a method developed for 8-channel systems known as MUSIC-Highest. Results show that the use of MLE-LR produces similar accuracy, in terms of the RMS difference and correlation coefficients squared, as previous methods. We demonstrate that improved accuracy can be obtained for both methods, at the cost of fewer velocity observations and decreased spatial coverage. For SeaSondes, accuracy improvements are obtained with less commonly used parameter sets. The MLE-LR is shown to be able to resolve simultaneous closely spaced emitters, which has the potential to improve observations obtained by HF radars operating in complex current environments. Significance Statement We identify and test a method based on the likelihood ratio (LR) for determining the number of signal sources in observations subject to direction finding with maximum likelihood estimation (MLE). Direction-finding methods are used in broad-ranging applications that include radar, sonar, and wireless communication. Previous work suggests accuracy improvements when using MLE, but suitable methods for determining the number of simultaneous signal sources are not well known. Our work shows that the LR, when combined with MLE, performs at least as well as alternative methods when applied to oceanographic high-frequency (HF) radars. In some situations, MLE and LR obtain superior resolution, where resolution is defined as the ability to distinguish closely spaced signal sources. 

   more » « less
5. 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