More Like this

1. Explainable Contrastive Multiview Graph Representation of Brain, Mind, and Behavior

   Zhao, Chongyue ; Zhan, Liang ; Thompson, Paul M ; Huang, Heng. ( September 2022 , Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention – MICCAI 2022. Lecture Notes in Computer Science.)

   Understanding the intrinsic patterns of human brain is important to make inferences about the mind and brain-behavior association. Electrophysiological methods (i.e. MEG/EEG) provide direct measures of neural activity without the effect of vascular confounds. The blood oxygenated level-dependent (BOLD) signal of functional MRI (fMRI) reveals the spatial and temporal brain activity across different brain regions. However, it is unclear how to associate the high temporal resolution Electrophysiological measures with high spatial resolution fMRI signals. Here, we present a novel interpretable model for coupling the structure and function activity of brain based on heterogeneous contrastive graph representation. The proposed method is able to link manifest variables of the brain (i.e. MEG, MRI, fMRI and behavior performance) and quantify the intrinsic coupling strength of different modal signals. The proposed method learns the heterogeneous node and graph representations by contrasting the structural and temporal views through the mind to multimodal brain data. The first experiment with 1200 subjects from Human connectome Project (HCP) shows that the proposed method outperforms the existing approaches in predicting individual gender and enabling the location of the importance of brain regions with sex difference. The second experiment associates the structure and temporal views between the low-level sensory regions and high-level cognitive ones. The experimental results demonstrate that the dependence of structural and temporal views varied spatially through different modal variants. The proposed method enables the heterogeneous biomarkers explanation for different brain measurements. 

   more » « less
2. Revealing Continuous Brain Dynamical Organization with Multimodal Graph Transformer

   Zhao, Chongyue ; Zhan, Liang ; Thompson, Paul M. ; Huang, Heng. ( September 2022 , Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention – MICCAI 2022. Lecture Notes in Computer Science.)

   Brain large-scale dynamics is constrained by the heterogeneity of intrinsic anatomical substrate. Little is known how the spatiotemporal dynamics adapt for the heterogeneous structural connectivity (SC). Modern neuroimaging modalities make it possible to study the intrinsic brain activity at the scale of seconds to minutes. Diffusion magnetic resonance imaging (dMRI) and functional MRI reveals the large-scale SC across different brain regions. Electrophysiological methods (i.e. MEG/EEG) provide direct measures of neural activity and exhibits complex neurobiological temporal dynamics which could not be solved by fMRI. However, most of existing multimodal analytical methods collapse the brain measurements either in space or time domain and fail to capture the spatio-temporal circuit dynamics. In this paper, we propose a novel spatio-temporal graph Transformer model to integrate the structural and functional connectivity in both spatial and temporal domain. The proposed method learns the heterogeneous node and graph representation via contrastive learning and multi-head attention based graph Transformer using multimodal brain data (i.e. fMRI, MRI, MEG and behavior performance). The proposed contrastive graph Transformer representation model incorporates the heterogeneity map constrained by T1-to-T2-weighted (T1w/T2w) to improve the model fit to structurefunction interactions. The experimental results with multimodal resting state brain measurements demonstrate the proposed method could highlight the local properties of large-scale brain spatio-temporal dynamics and capture the dependence strength between functional connectivity and behaviors. In summary, the proposed method enables the complex brain dynamics explanation for different modal variants. 

   more » « less
3. 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
4. Data from: Parallel processing in speech perception with local and global representations of linguistic context

   https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.nvx0k6dv0  

   Brodbeck, Christian ; Bhattasali, Shohini ; Cruz Heredia, Aura A. ; Resnik, Philip ; Simon, Jonathan Z. ; Lau, Ellen ( January 2022 , Dryad)

   Speech processing is highly incremental. It is widely accepted that human listeners continuously use the linguistic context to anticipate upcoming concepts, words, and phonemes. However, previous evidence supports two seemingly contradictory models of how a predictive context is integrated with the bottom-up sensory input: Classic psycholinguistic paradigms suggest a two-stage process, in which acoustic input initially leads to local, context-independent representations, which are then quickly integrated with contextual constraints. This contrasts with the view that the brain constructs a single coherent, unified interpretation of the input, which fully integrates available information across representational hierarchies, and thus uses contextual constraints to modulate even the earliest sensory representations. To distinguish these hypotheses, we tested magnetoencephalography responses to continuous narrative speech for signatures of local and unified predictive models. Results provide evidence that listeners employ both types of models in parallel. Two local context models uniquely predict some part of early neural responses, one based on sublexical phoneme sequences, and one based on the phonemes in the current word alone; at the same time, even early responses to phonemes also reflect a unified model that incorporates sentence-level constraints to predict upcoming phonemes. Neural source localization places the anatomical origins of the different predictive models in nonidentical parts of the superior temporal lobes bilaterally, with the right hemisphere showing a relative preference for more local models. These results suggest that speech processing recruits both local and unified predictive models in parallel, reconciling previous disparate findings. Parallel models might make the perceptual system more robust, facilitate processing of unexpected inputs, and serve a function in language acquisition. MEG Data MEG data is in FIFF format and can be opened with MNE-Python. Data has been directly converted from the acquisition device native format without any preprocessing. Events contained in the data indicate the stimuli in numerical order. Subjects R2650 and R2652 heard stimulus 11b instead of 11. Predictor Variables The original audio files are copyrighted and cannot be shared, but the make_audio folder contains make_clips.py which can be used to extract the exact clips from the commercially available audiobook (ISBN 978-1480555280). The predictors directory contains all the predictors used in the original study as pickled eelbrain objects. They can be loaded in Python with the eelbrain.load.unpickle function. The TextGrids directory contains the TextGrids aligned to the audio files. Source Localization The localization.zip file contains files needed for source localization. Structural brain models used in the published analysis are reconstructed by scaling the FreeSurfer fsaverage brain (distributed with FreeSurfer) based on each subject's `MRI scaling parameters.cfg` file. This can be done using the `mne.scale_mri` function. Each subject's MEG folder contains a `subject-trans.fif` file which contains the coregistration between MEG sensor space and (scaled) MRI space, which is used to compute the forward solution. 

   more » « less
5. Salience of low-frequency entrainment to visual signal for classification points to predictive processing in sign language. In Proceedings of 30th Annual Computational Neuroscience Meeting: CNS*2021

   https://doi.org/10.1007/s10827-021-00801-9  

   E. Malaia, L.K. Ford ( December 2021 , Journal of Computational Neuroscience)

   Objectively differentiating patient mental states based on electrical activity, as opposed to overt behavior, is a fundamental neuroscience problem with medical applications, such as identifying patients in locked-in state vs. coma. Electroencephalography (EEG), which detects millisecond-level changes in brain activity across a range of frequencies, allows for assessment of external stimulus processing by the brain in a non-invasive manner. We applied machine learning methods to 26-channel EEG data of 24 fluent Deaf signers watching videos of sign language sentences (comprehension condition), and the same videos reversed in time (non-comprehension condition), to objectively separate vision-based high-level cognition states. While spectrotemporal parameters of the stimuli were identical in comprehension vs. non-comprehension conditions, the neural responses of participants varied based on their ability to linguistically decode visual data. We aimed to determine which subset of parameters (specific scalp regions or frequency ranges) would be necessary and sufficient for high classification accuracy of comprehension state. Optical flow, characterizing distribution of velocities of objects in an image, was calculated for each pixel of stimulus videos using MATLAB Vision toolbox. Coherence between optical flow in the stimulus and EEG neural response (per video, per participant) was then computed using canonical component analysis with NoiseTools toolbox. Peak correlations were extracted for each frequency for each electrode, participant, and video. A set of standard ML algorithms were applied to the entire dataset (26 channels, frequencies from .2 Hz to 12.4 Hz, binned in 1 Hz increments), with consistent out-of-sample 100% accuracy for frequencies in .2-1 Hz range for all regions, and above 80% accuracy for frequencies < 4 Hz. Sparse Optimal Scoring (SOS) was then applied to the EEG data to reduce the dimensionality of the features and improve model interpretability. SOS with elastic-net penalty resulted in out-of-sample classification accuracy of 98.89%. The sparsity pattern in the model indicated that frequencies between 0.2–4 Hz were primarily used in the classification, suggesting that underlying data may be group sparse. Further, SOS with group lasso penalty was applied to regional subsets of electrodes (anterior, posterior, left, right). All trials achieved greater than 97% out-of-sample classification accuracy. The sparsity patterns from the trials using 1 Hz bins over individual regions consistently indicated frequencies between 0.2–1 Hz were primarily used in the classification, with anterior and left regions performing the best with 98.89% and 99.17% classification accuracy, respectively. While the sparsity pattern may not be the unique optimal model for a given trial, the high classification accuracy indicates that these models have accurately identified common neural responses to visual linguistic stimuli. Cortical tracking of spectro-temporal change in the visual signal of sign language appears to rely on lower frequencies proportional to the N400/P600 time-domain evoked response potentials, indicating that visual language comprehension is grounded in predictive processing mechanisms. 

   more » « less