More Like this

1. 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
2. Compressive Neural Representations of Volumetric Scalar Fields

   https://doi.org/10.1111/cgf.14295  

   Lu, Y. ; Jiang, K. ; Levine, J. A. ; Berger, M. ( June 2021 , Computer Graphics Forum)

   We present an approach for compressing volumetric scalar fields using implicit neural representations. Our approach represents a scalar field as a learned function, wherein a neural network maps a point in the domain to an output scalar value. By setting the number of weights of the neural network to be smaller than the input size, we achieve compressed representations of scalar fields, thus framing compression as a type of function approximation. Combined with carefully quantizing network weights, we show that this approach yields highly compact representations that outperform state‐of‐the‐art volume compression approaches. The conceptual simplicity of our approach enables a number of benefits, such as support for time‐varying scalar fields, optimizing to preserve spatial gradients, and random‐access field evaluation. We study the impact of network design choices on compression performance, highlighting how simple network architectures are effective for a broad range of volumes.

    

   more » « less
3. Neural Fields in Visual Computing and Beyond

   https://doi.org/10.1111/cgf.14505  

   Xie, Yiheng ; Takikawa, Towaki ; Saito, Shunsuke ; Litany, Or ; Yan, Shiqin ; Khan, Numair ; Tombari, Federico ; Tompkin, James ; sitzmann, Vincent ; Sridhar, Srinath ( May 2022 , Computer Graphics Forum)

   Recent advances in machine learning have led to increased interest in solving visual computing problems using methods that employ coordinate‐based neural networks. These methods, which we callneural fields, parameterize physical properties of scenes or objects across space and time. They have seen widespread success in problems such as 3D shape and image synthesis, animation of human bodies, 3D reconstruction, and pose estimation. Rapid progress has led to numerous papers, but a consolidation of the discovered knowledge has not yet emerged. We provide context, mathematical grounding, and a review of over 250 papers in the literature on neural fields. InPart I, we focus on neural field techniques by identifying common components of neural field methods, including different conditioning, representation, forward map, architecture, and manipulation methods. InPart II, we focus on applications of neural fields to different problems in visual computing, and beyond (e.g., robotics, audio). Our review shows the breadth of topics already covered in visual computing, both historically and in current incarnations, and highlights the improved quality, flexibility, and capability brought by neural field methods. Finally, we present a companion website that acts as a living database that can be continually updated by the community.

    

   more » « less
4. Geometry-complete perceptron networks for 3D molecular graphs

   https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btae087  

   Morehead, Alex ; Cheng, Jianlin ; Valencia, ed., Alfonso ( February 2024 , Bioinformatics)

   The field of geometric deep learning has recently had a profound impact on several scientific domains such as protein structure prediction and design, leading to methodological advancements within and outside of the realm of traditional machine learning. Within this spirit, in this work, we introduce GCPNet, a new chirality-aware SE(3)-equivariant graph neural network designed for representation learning of 3D biomolecular graphs. We show that GCPNet, unlike previous representation learning methods for 3D biomolecules, is widely applicable to a variety of invariant or equivariant node-level, edge-level, and graph-level tasks on biomolecular structures while being able to (1) learn important chiral properties of 3D molecules and (2) detect external force fields.

   Across four distinct molecular-geometric tasks, we demonstrate that GCPNet’s predictions (1) for protein–ligand binding affinity achieve a statistically significant correlation of 0.608, more than 5%, greater than current state-of-the-art methods; (2) for protein structure ranking achieve statistically significant target-local and dataset-global correlations of 0.616 and 0.871, respectively; (3) for Newtownian many-body systems modeling achieve a task-averaged mean squared error less than 0.01, more than 15% better than current methods; and (4) for molecular chirality recognition achieve a state-of-the-art prediction accuracy of 98.7%, better than any other machine learning method to date.

   The source code, data, and instructions to train new models or reproduce our results are freely available at https://github.com/BioinfoMachineLearning/GCPNet.

    

   more » « less
5. Playing Atari with few neurons: Improving the efficacy of reinforcement learning by decoupling feature extraction and decision making

   https://doi.org/10.1007/s10458-021-09497-8  

   Cuccu, Giuseppe ; Togelius, Julian ; Cudré-Mauroux, Philippe ( April 2021 , Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems)

   We propose a new method for learning compact state representations and policies separately but simultaneously for policy approximation in vision-based applications such as Atari games. Approaches based on deep reinforcement learning typically map pixels directly to actions to enable end-to-end training. Internally, however, the deep neural network bears the responsibility of both extracting useful information and making decisions based on it, two objectives which can be addressed independently. Separating the image processing from the action selection allows for a better understanding of either task individually, as well as potentially finding smaller policy representations which is inherently interesting. Our approach learns state representations using a compact encoder based on two novel algorithms: (i) Increasing Dictionary Vector Quantization builds a dictionary of state representations which grows in size over time, allowing our method to address new observations as they appear in an open-ended online-learning context; and (ii) Direct Residuals Sparse Coding encodes observations in function of the dictionary, aiming for highest information inclusion by disregarding reconstruction error and maximizing code sparsity. As the dictionary size increases, however, the encoder produces increasingly larger inputs for the neural network; this issue is addressed with a new variant of the Exponential Natural Evolution Strategies algorithm which adapts the dimensionality of its probability distribution along the run. We test our system on a selection of Atari games using tiny neural networks of only 6 to 18 neurons (depending on each game’s controls). These are still capable of achieving results that are not much worse, and occasionally superior, to the state-of-the-art in direct policy search which uses two orders of magnitude more neurons.

    

   more » « less