MMS3 spacecraft passed the vicinity of the electron diffusion region of magnetotail reconnection on 3 July 2017, observing discrepancies between perpendicular electron bulk velocities and
Plasma and wave measurements from the NASA Magnetospheric Multiscale mission are presented for magnetotail reconnection events on 3 July and 11 July 2017. Linear dispersion analyses were performed using distribution functions comprising up to six drifting bi‐Maxwellian distributions. In both events electron crescent‐shaped distributions are shown to be responsible for upper hybrid waves near the X‐line. In an adjacent location within the 3 July event a monodirectional field‐aligned electron beam drove parallel‐propagating beam‐mode waves. In the 11 July event an electron distribution consisting of a drifting core and two crescents was shown to generate upper‐hybrid and beam‐mode waves at three different frequencies, explaining the observed broadband waves. Multiple harmonics of the upper hybrid waves were observed but cannot be explained by the linear dispersion analysis since they result from nonlinear beam interactions.
more » « less- NSF-PAR ID:
- 10375254
- Publisher / Repository:
- DOI PREFIX: 10.1029
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Geophysical Research Letters
- Volume:
- 46
- Issue:
- 8
- ISSN:
- 0094-8276
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- p. 4089-4097
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
more » « less
Abstract drift, and agyrotropic electron crescent distributions. Analyzing linear wave dispersions, Burch et al. (2019, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GL082471 ) showed the electron crescent generates high‐frequency waves. We investigate harmonics of upper‐hybrid (UH) waves using both observation and particle‐in‐cell (PIC) simulation, and the generation of electromagnetic radiation from PIC simulation. Harmonics of UH are linearly polarized and propagate along the perpendicular direction to the ambient magnetic field. Compared with two‐dimensional PIC simulation and nonlinear kinetic theory, we show that the nonlinear beam‐plasma interaction between the agyrotropic electrons and the core electrons generates harmonics of UH. Moreover, PIC simulation shows that agyrotropic electron beam can lead to electromagnetic (EM) radiation at the plasma frequency and harmonics. -
more » « less
Abstract Although electron cyclotron harmonic (ECH) waves are the primary contributor to plasma sheet electron scattering loss, experimental verification of their most widely accepted excitation mechanism, loss‐cone instability, has been lacking for decades. Using 10 years of time history of events and macroscale interactions during substorms satellite observations, we investigate ECH wave properties near dipolarization fronts, the predominant source of such waves. To our surprise we find that more than 30% of observed ECH waves have moderately oblique (∼70°) wave normal angles (WNA), much less than the ∼85° expected from classical loss‐cone instability. These moderately oblique WNA ECH waves carry a strong field‐aligned electric field that is used to identify them. They are often observed with cold, dense electrons that exhibit enhanced parallel flux at a few hundred eV energy, which suggests that low‐energy counterstreaming beams (likely of ionospheric origin) might be their free energy source. By solving the linear dispersion relation for parameters representative of such plasma sheet electron distributions, we confirm that ECH waves at WNA ∼ 70° can indeed be driven unstable by such beams. Our work reveals a previously unknown excitation mechanism for ECH waves and exposes the need for quantifying the conditions for and relative importance of beam‐driven waves compared to those excited by the loss‐cone instability in Earth's plasma sheet.
-
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
-
more » « less
Abstract Whistler waves are often observed in magnetopause reconnection associated with electron beams. We analyze seven MMS crossings surrounding the electron diffusion region (EDR) to study the role of electron beams in whistler excitation. Waves have two major types: (a) Narrow‐band waves with high ellipticities and (b) broad‐band waves that are more electrostatic with significant variations in ellipticities and wave normal angles. While both types of waves are associated with electron beams, the key difference is the anisotropy of the background population, with perpendicular and parallel anisotropies, respectively. The linear instability analysis suggests that the first type of wave is mainly due to the background anisotropy, with the beam contributing additional cyclotron resonance to enhance the wave growth. The second type of broadband waves are excited via Landau resonance, and as seen in one event, the beam anisotropy induces an additional cyclotron mode. The results are supported by particle‐in‐cell simulations. We infer that the first type occurs downstream of the central EDR, where background electrons experience Betatron acceleration to form the perpendicular anisotropy; the second type occurs in the central EDR of guide field reconnection. A parametric study is conducted with linear instability analysis. A beam anisotropy alone of above ∼3 likely excites the cyclotron mode waves. Large beam drifts cause Doppler shifts and may lead to left‐hand polarizations in the ion frame. Future studies are needed to determine whether the observation covers a broader parameter regime and to understand the competition between whistler and other instabilities.
-
more » « less
Abstract Electron losses from the outer radiation belt are typically attributed to resonant electron scattering by whistler‐mode waves. Although the quasi‐linear diffusive regime of such scattering is well understood, the observed waves are often quite intense and in the nonlinear regime of resonant wave‐particle interaction. Such nonlinear resonant interactions are still being actively studied due to their potential for driving fast precipitation. However, direct observations of nonlinear resonance of whistler‐mode waves with electron distributions are scarce. Here, we present evidence for such resonance with high‐resolution electron energy and pitch angle spectra acquired at low‐altitudes by the dual Electron Losses and Fields INvestgation (ELFIN) CubeSats combined with conjugate measurements of equatorial plasma parameters, wave properties, and electron energy spectra by the Time History of Events and Macroscale Interactions during Substorms and Magnetospheric MultiScale missions. ELFIN has obtained numerous conjunction events exhibiting whistler wave driven precipitation; in this study, we present two such events which epitomize signatures of nonlinear resonant scattering. A test particle simulation of electron interactions with intense whistler‐mode waves prescribed at the equator is employed to directly compare modeled precipitation spectra with ELFIN observations. We show that the observed precipitating spectra match expectations to within observational uncertainties of wave amplitude for reasonable assumptions of wave power distribution along the magnetic field line. These results indicate the importance of nonlinear resonant effects when describing intense precipitation patterns of energetic electrons and open the possibility of remotely investigating equatorial wave properties using just properties of precipitation energy and pitch angle spectra.
