More Like this

1. Improved Training Paradigms and Motor-decode Algorithms: Results from Intact Individuals and a Recent Transradial Amputee with Prior Complex Regional Pain Syndrome

   https://doi.org/10.1109/EMBC.2018.8513342  

   George, Jacob A. ; Brinton, Mark R. ; Duncan, Christopher C. ; Hutchinson, Douglas T. ; Clark, Gregory A. ( July 2018 , 40th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC))

   Working towards improved neuromyoelectric control of dexterous prosthetic hands, we explored how differences in training paradigms affect the subsequent online performance of two different motor-decode algorithms. Participants included two intact subjects and one participant who had undergone a recent transradial amputation after complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) and multi-year disuse of the affected hand. During algorithm training sessions, participants actively mimicked hand movements appearing on a computer monitor. We varied both the duration of the hold-time (0.1 s or 5 s) at the end-point of each of six different digit and wrist movements, and the order in which the training movements were presented (random or sequential). We quantified the impact of these variations on two different motordecode algorithms, both having proportional, six-degree-offreedom (DOF) control: a modified Kalman filter (MKF) previously reported by this group, and a new approach - a convolutional neural network (CNN). Results showed that increasing the hold-time in the training set improved run-time performance. By contrast, presenting training movements in either random or sequential order had a variable and relatively modest effect on performance. The relative performance of the two decode algorithms varied according to the performance metric. This work represents the first-ever amputee use of amore »CNN for real-time, proportional six-DOF control of a prosthetic hand. Also novel was the testing of implanted high-channelcount devices for neuromyoelectric control shortly after amputation, following CRPS and long-term hand disuse. This work identifies key factors in the training of decode algorithms that improve their subsequent run-time performance.« less
2. Biomimetic sensory feedback through peripheral nerve stimulation improves dexterous use of a bionic hand

   https://doi.org/10.1126/scirobotics.aax2352  

   George, J. A. ; Kluger, D. T. ; Davis, T. S. ; Wendelken, S. M. ; Okorokova, E. V. ; He, Q. ; Duncan, C. C. ; Hutchinson, D. T. ; Thumser, Z. C. ; Beckler, D. T. ; et al ( July 2019 , Science Robotics)

   We describe use of a bidirectional neuromyoelectric prosthetic hand that conveys biomimetic sensory feedback. Electromyographic recordings from residual arm muscles were decoded to provide independent and proportional control of a six-DOF prosthetic hand and wrist—the DEKA LUKE arm. Activation of contact sensors on the prosthesis resulted in intraneural microstimulation of residual sensory nerve fibers through chronically implanted Utah Slanted Electrode Arrays, thereby evoking tactile percepts on the phantom hand. With sensory feedback enabled, the participant exhibited greater precision in grip force and was better able to handle fragile objects. With active exploration, the participant was also able to distinguish between small and large objects and between soft and hard ones. When the sensory feedback was biomimetic—designed to mimic natural sensory signals—the participant was able to identify the objects significantly faster than with the use of traditional encoding algorithms that depended on only the present stimulus intensity. Thus, artificial touch can be sculpted by patterning the sensory feedback, and biologically inspired patterns elicit more interpretable and useful percepts.
3. Toward a generalizable deep CNN for neural drive estimation across muscles and participants

   https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-2552/acae0b  

   Wen, Yue ; Kim, Sangjoon J. ; Avrillon, Simon ; Levine, Jackson T. ; Hug, François ; Pons, José L. ( January 2023 , Journal of Neural Engineering)

   Objective.High-density electromyography (HD-EMG) decomposition algorithms are used to identify individual motor unit (MU) spike trains, which collectively constitute the neural code of movements, to predict motor intent. This approach has advanced from offline to online decomposition, from isometric to dynamic contractions, leading to a wide range of neural-machine interface applications. However, current online methods need offline retraining when applied to the same muscle on a different day or to a different person, which limits their applications in a real-time neural-machine interface. We proposed a deep convolutional neural network (CNN) framework for neural drive estimation, which takes in frames of HD-EMG signals as input, extracts general spatiotemporal properties of MU action potentials, and outputs the number of spikes in each frame. The deep CNN can generalize its application without retraining to HD-EMG data recorded in separate sessions, muscles, or participants.Approach.We recorded HD-EMG signals from the vastus medialis and vastus lateralis muscles from five participants while they performed isometric contractions during two sessions separated by ∼20 months. We identified MU spike trains from HD-EMG signals using a convolutive blind source separation (BSS) method, and then used the cumulative spike train (CST) of these MUs and the HD-EMG signals to train andmore »validate the deep CNN.Main results.On average, the correlation coefficients between CST from the BSS and that from deep CNN were$0.983\pm 0.006$for leave-one-out across-sessions-and-muscles validation and$0.989\pm 0.002$for leave-one-out across-participants validation. When trained with more than four datasets, the performance of deep CNN saturated at$0.984\pm 0.001$for cross validations across muscles, sessions, and participants.Significance.We can conclude that the deep CNN is generalizable across the aforementioned conditions without retraining. We could potentially generate a robust deep CNN to estimate neural drive to muscles for neural-machine interfaces.

   « less
4. Characterizing Residual Muscle Properties in Lower Limb Amputees Using High Density EMG Decomposition: A Pilot Study ^*

   https://doi.org/10.1109/EMBC.2018.8513661  

   Fylstra, Bretta L. ; Dai, Chenyun ; Hu, Xiaogang ; Huang, He Helen ( July 2018 , International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC))

   As research is progressing towards EMG control of lower limb prostheses, it is vital to understand the neurophysiology of the residual muscles in the amputated limb, which has been largely ignored. Therefore, the goal of this study was to characterize the activation patterns (muscle recruitment and motor unit discharge patterns) of the residual muscles of lower limb amputees. One transtibial amputee subject was recruited for this pilot study. The participant wore three high-density EMG electrode pads (8x8 grid with 64 channels) on each limb (a total of six pads) – one on the tibialis anterior (TA), medial gastrocnemius (MG), and lateral gastrocnemius (LG), respectively. The participant was asked to follow a ramping procedure plateauing at 50% of maximum voluntary contraction (MVC) for both the TA and Gastrocnemius muscles. The EMG signals were then decomposed offline; the firing rate and spatial activation patterns of the muscle were analyzed. Results showed slower and more variable firing rate in motor units of residual muscles than those of intact side. In addition, the spatial pattern of muscle activation differed between residual and intact muscles. These results indicate that surface EMG signals recorded from residual muscles present modified signal features from intact shank muscles, whichmore »should be considered when implementing myoelectric control schemes.« 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 EEGmore »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.« less