More Like this

1. Implementation of the Digital QS-SVM-Based Beamformer on an FPGA Platform

   https://doi.org/10.3390/s23031742  

   Komeylian, Somayeh ; Paolini, Christopher ( February 2023 , Sensors)

   To address practical challenges in establishing and maintaining robust wireless connectivity such as multi-path effects, low latency, size reduction, and high data rate, we have deployed the digital beamformer, as a spatial filter, by using the hybrid antenna array at an operating frequency of 10 GHz. The proposed digital beamformer utilizes a combination of the two well-established beamforming techniques of minimum variance distortionless response (MVDR) and linearly constrained minimum variance (LCMV). In this case, the MVDR beamforming method updates weight vectors on the FPGA board, while the LCMV beamforming technique performs nullsteering in directions of interference signals in the real environment. The most well-established machine learning technique of support vector machine (SVM) for the Direction of Arrival (DoA) estimation is limited to problems with linearly-separable datasets. To overcome the aforementioned constraint, the quadratic surface support vector machine (QS-SVM) classifier with a small regularizer has been used in the proposed beamformer for the DoA estimation in addition to the two beamforming techniques of LCMV and MVDR. In this work, we have assumed that five hybrid array antennas and three sources are available, at which one of the sources transmits the signal of interest. The QS-SVM-based beamformer has been deployed on the FPGA board for spatially filtering two signals from undesired directions and passing only one of the signals from the desired direction. The simulation results have verified the strong performance of the QS-SVM-based beamformer in suppressing interference signals, which are accompanied by placing deep nulls with powers less than −10 dB in directions of interference signals, and transferring the desired signal. Furthermore, we have verified that the performance of the QS-SVM-based beamformer yields other advantages including average latency time in the order of milliseconds, performance efficiency of more than 90%, and throughput of nearly 100%.

    

   more » « less
2. An Outdoor Experimental Study of Many Antenna Full-Duplex Wireless

   Hosseini, H. ; Almutairi, A. ; Hashir, S. M. ; Aryafar, E. ; Camp, J. ( October 2023 , International Teletraffic Congress)

   Full-duplex (FD) wireless communication refers to a communication system in which both ends of a wireless link transmit and receive data simultaneously and on the same frequency band. One of the major challenges of FD communication is self-interference (SI), which refers to the interference caused by transmitting elements of a radio to its own receiving elements. Fully digital beamforming is a technique used to conduct beamforming and has been recently repurposed to also reduce SI. However, the cost of fully digital systems (e.g., base stations) dramatically increases with the increase in the number of antennas as these systems use a separate Tx-Rx RF chain for each antenna element. Hybrid beamforming systems use a much smaller number of RF chains to feed the same number of antennas, and hence can significantly reduce the deployment cost. In this paper, we aim to quantify the performance gap between these two radio architectures in terms of SI cancellation and system capacity in FD multi-user MIMO setups. We first obtained over-the-air channel measurement data on two outdoor massive MIMO deployments over the course of three months. We next study two state-of-the-art transmit beamforming based FD systems for fully digital and hybrid architectures. We show that the hybrid beamforming system can achieve 80-97% of the fully digital system capacity, depending on the number of clients. 

   more » « less
3. Sensitivity analysis of a multibranched light guide for real time hyperspectral imaging systems

   https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2510506  

   Browning, Craig M. ; Mayes, Sam ; Deal, Joshua ; Arshad, Arslan ; Gunn Mayes, Samantha ; Parker, Marina ; Rich, Thomas ; Leavesley, Silas J. ; Azar, Fred S. ; Intes, Xavier ; et al ( February 2019 , Proc. SPIE 10871, Multimodal Biomedical Imaging XIV, 1087107)

   Hyperspectral imaging (HSI) is a spectroscopic technique which captures images at a high contrast over a wide range of wavelengths to show pixel specific composition. Traditional uses of HSI include: satellite imagery, food distribution quality control and digital archaeological reconstruction. Our lab has focused on developing applications of HSI fluorescence imaging systems to study molecule-specific detection for rapid cell signaling events or real-time endoscopic screening. Previously, we have developed a prototype spectral light source, using our modified imaging technique, excitationscanning hyperspectral imaging (HIFEX), coupled to a commercial colonoscope for feasibility testing. The 16 wavelength LED array was combined, using a multi-branched solid light guide, to couple to the scope’s optical input. The prototype acquired a spectral scan at near video-rate speeds (~8 fps). The prototype could operate at very rapid wavelength switch speeds, limited to the on/off rates of the LEDs (~10 μs), but imaging speed was limited due to optical transmission losses (~98%) through the solid light guide. Here we present a continuation of our previous work in performing an in-depth analysis of the solid light guide to optimize the optical intensity throughput. The parameters evaluated include: LED intensity input, geometry (branch curvature and combination) and light propagation using outer claddings. Simulations were conducted using a Monte Carlo ray tracing software (TracePro). Results show that transmission within the branched light guide may be optimized through LED focusing lenses, bend radii and smooth tangential branch merges. Future work will test a new fabricated light guide from the optimized model framework. 

   more » « less
4. Fast EVM Tuning of MIMO Wireless Systems Using Collaborative Parallel Testing and Implicit Reward Driven Learning

   https://doi.org/10.1109/ITC44778.2020.9325270  

   Komarraju, Suhasini ; Chatterjee, Abhijit ( November 2020 , International Test Conference)

   null (Ed.)

   Modern 5G and projected 6G wireless systems deploy massive MIMO systems with antenna arrays and novel RF transceiver architectures that admit RF beamforming. Testing and tuning of the underlying transceiver arrays on a per-transceiver basis is expensive and can be expedited through the use of parallel testing and tuning techniques that stimulate the entire array transceiver system concurrently. State of the art parallel testing techniques require frequency separation between the tones applied to individual RF chains due to combining of RF signals before down-conversion in analog beamforming MIMO systems. Test schemes that allow some frequency overlap are limited to testing only third order distortion. In this paper, we first present a parallel testing scheme for testing large MIMO transceiver arrays that is amenable to higher order distortion (upto fifth order) in the RF chains considered. Second, we propose a tuning scheme for the entire MIMO array which implicitly tunes for EVM system specifications without explicit knowledge of the relationship between the system test response, the system tuning knobs and the corresponding EVM and SINR specification values. A cost metric is formulated that allows such a solution using reinforcement (multi-arm bandit) learning driven system tuning. Significant yield improvement using this approach is demonstrated by simulation experiments. 

   more » « 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 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