More Like this

1. FilCorr: Filtered and Lagged Correlation on Streaming Time Series

   https://doi.org/10.1109/icdm50108.2020.00190  

   Zhong, Sheng ; Souza, Vinicius M.A. ; Mueen, Abdullah ( November 2020 , 2020 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM))

   null (Ed.)

   An essential task on streaming time series data is to compute pairwise correlation across disparate signal sources to identify significant events. In many monitoring applications, such as geospatial monitoring, motion monitoring and critical infrastructure monitoring, correlation is observed at various frequency bands and temporal lags. In this paper, we consider computing filtered and lagged correlation on streaming time series data, which is challenging because the computation must be “in-sync” with the incoming stream for any detected events to be useful. We propose a technique to compute filtered and lagged correlation on streaming data efficiently by merging two individual operations: filtering and cross-correlations. We achieve an order of magnitude speed-up by maintaining frequency transforms over sliding windows. Our method is exact, devoid of sensitive parameters, and easily parallelizable. We demonstrate our technique in a seismic signal monitoring application. 

   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. Infrasound single-channel noise reduction: application to detection and localization of explosive volcanism in Alaska using backprojection and array processing

   https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggac182  

   Sanderson, Richard W. ; Matoza, Robin S. ; Fee, David ; Haney, Matthew M. ; Lyons, John J. ( May 2022 , Geophysical Journal International)

   Infrasound sensors are deployed in a variety of spatial configurations and scales for geophysical monitoring, including networks of single sensors and networks of multisensor infrasound arrays. Infrasound signal detection strategies exploiting these data commonly make use of intersensor correlation and coherence (array processing, multichannel correlation); network-based tracking of signal features (e.g. reverse time migration); or a combination of these such as backazimuth cross-bearings for multiple arrays. Single-sensor trace-based denoising techniques offer significant potential to improve all of these various infrasound data processing strategies, but have not previously been investigated in detail. Single-sensor denoising represents a pre-processing step that could reduce the effects of ambient infrasound and wind noise in infrasound signal association and location workflows. We systematically investigate the utility of a range of single-sensor denoising methods for infrasound data processing, including noise gating, non-negative matrix factorization, and data-adaptive Wiener filtering. For the data testbed, we use the relatively dense regional infrasound network in Alaska, which records a high rate of volcanic eruptions with signals varying in power, duration, and waveform and spectral character. We primarily use data from the 2016–2017 Bogoslof volcanic eruption, which included multiple explosions, and synthetics. The Bogoslof volcanic sequence provides an opportunity to investigate regional infrasound detection, association, and location for a set of real sources with varying source spectra subject to anisotropic atmospheric propagation and varying noise levels (both incoherent wind noise and coherent ambient infrasound, primarily microbaroms). We illustrate the advantages and disadvantages of the different denoising methods in categories such as event detection, waveform distortion, the need for manual data labelling, and computational cost. For all approaches, denoising generally performs better for signals with higher signal-to-noise ratios and with less spectral and temporal overlap between signals and noise. Microbaroms are the most globally pervasive and repetitive coherent ambient infrasound noise source, with such noise often referred to as clutter or interference. We find that denoising offers significant potential for microbarom clutter reduction. Single-channel denoising of microbaroms prior to standard array processing enhances both the quantity and bandwidth of detectable volcanic events. We find that reduction of incoherent wind noise is more challenging using the denoising methods we investigate; thus, station hardware (wind noise reduction systems) and site selection remain critical and cannot be replaced by currently available digital denoising methodologies. Overall, we find that adding single-channel denoising as a component in the processing workflow can benefit a variety of infrasound signal detection, association, and location schemes. The denoising methods can also isolate the noise itself, with utility in statistically characterizing ambient infrasound noise.

    

   more » « less
4. Volcanic earthquake catalog enhancement using integrated detection, matched-filtering, and relocation tools

   https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2023.1158442  

   Tan, Darren ; Fee, David ; Hotovec-Ellis, Alicia J. ; Pesicek, Jeremy D. ; Haney, Matthew M. ; Power, John A. ; Girona, Társilo ( May 2023 , Frontiers in Earth Science)

   Volcanic earthquake catalogs are an essential data product used to interpret subsurface volcanic activity and forecast eruptions. Advances in detection techniques (e.g., matched-filtering, machine learning) and relative relocation tools have improved catalog completeness and refined event locations. However, most volcano observatories have yet to incorporate these techniques into their catalog-building workflows. This is due in part to complexities in operationalizing, automating, and calibrating these techniques in a satisfactory way for disparate volcano networks and their varied seismicity. In an effort to streamline the integration of catalog-enhancing tools at the Alaska Volcano Observatory (AVO), we have integrated four popular open-source tools: REDPy, EQcorrscan, HypoDD, and GrowClust. The combination of these tools offers the capability of adding seismic event detections and relocating events in a single workflow. The workflow relies on a combination of standard triggering and cross-correlation clustering (REDPy) to consolidate representative templates used in matched-filtering (EQcorrscan). The templates and their detections are then relocated using the differential time methods provided by HypoDD and/or GrowClust. Our workflow also provides codes to incorporate campaign data at appropriate junctures, and calculate magnitude and frequency index for valid events. We apply this workflow to three datasets: the 2012–2013 seismic swarm sequence at Mammoth Mountain (California), the 2009 eruption of Redoubt Volcano (Alaska), and the 2006 eruption of Augustine Volcano (Alaska); and compare our results with previous studies at each volcano. In general, our workflow provides a significant increase in the number of events and improved locations, and we relate the event clusters and temporal progressions to relevant volcanic activity. We also discuss workflow implementation best practices, particularly in applying these tools to sparse volcano seismic networks. We envision that our workflow and the datasets presented here will be useful for detailed volcano analyses in monitoring and research efforts.

    

   more » « less
5. PreMSat: Preventing Magnetic Saturation Attack on Hall Sensors

   https://doi.org/10.46586/tches.v2022.i4.438-462  

   Barua, Anomadarshi ; Al Faruque, Mohammad Abdullah ( August 2022 , IACR Transactions on Cryptographic Hardware and Embedded Systems)

   Spoofing a passive Hall sensor with fake magnetic fields can inject false data into the downstream of connected systems. Several works have tried to provide a defense against the intentional spoofing to different sensors over the last six years. However, they either only work on active sensors or against externally injected unwanted weak signals (e.g., EMIs, acoustics, ultrasound, etc.), which can only spoof sensor output in its linear region. However, they do not work against a strong magnetic spoofing attack that can drive the passive Hall sensor output in its saturation region. We name this as the saturation attack. In the saturation region, the output gets flattened, and no information can be retrieved, resulting in a denial-of-service attack on the sensor.Our work begins to fill this gap by providing a defense named PreMSat against the saturation attack on passive Hall sensors. The core idea behind PreMSat is that it cangenerate an internal magnetic field having the same strength but in opposite polarity to external magnetic fields injected by an attacker. Therefore, the generated internal magnetic field by PreMSat can nullify the injected external field while preventing: (i) intentional spoofing in the sensor’s linear region, and (ii) saturation attack in the saturation region. PreMSat integrates a low-resistance magnetic path to collect the injected external magnetic fields and utilizes a finely tuned PID controller to nullify the external fields in real-time. PreMSat can prevent the magnetic saturation attack having a strength up to ∼4200 A-t within a frequency range of 0 Hz–30 kHz with low cost (∼$14), whereas the existing works cannot prevent saturation attacks with any strength. Moreover, it works against saturation attacks originating from any type, such as constant, sinusoidal, and pulsating magnetic fields. We did over 300 experiments on ten different industry-used Hall sensors from four different manufacturers to prove the efficacy of PreMSat and found that the correlation coefficient between the signals before the attack and after the attack is greater than 0.94 in every test case. Moreover, we create a prototype of PreMSat and evaluate its performance in a practical system — a grid-tied solar inverter. We find that PreMSat can satisfactorily prevent the saturation attack on passive Hall sensors in real-time. 

   more » « less