More Like this

1. Adversary on Multimodal BCI-based Classification

   Kumar, Chetan ; Donohue, James P. ; Gonjari, Rohan ; Rahimi, Neela ; McLinden, John ; Shahriari, Yalda ; Shao, Ming ( April 2023 , 11th International IEEE EMBS Conference on Neural Engineering)

   Neural networks (NN) has been adopted by brain-computer interfaces (BCI) to encode brain signals acquired using electroencephalography (EEG) and functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS). However, it has been found that NN models are vulnerable to adversarial examples, i.e., corrupted samples with imperceptible noise. Once attacked, it could impact medical diagnosis and patients’ quality of life. While early work focuses on interference using external devices at the time of signal acquisition, recent research shifts to collected signals, features, and learning models under various attack modes (e.g., white-, grey-, and black-box). However, existing work only considers single-modality attacks and ignores the topological relationships among different observations, e.g., samples having strong similarities. Different from previous approaches, we introduce graph neural networks (GNN) to multimodal BCI-based classification and explore its performance and robustness against adversarial attacks. This study will evaluate the robustness of NN models with and without graph knowledge on both single and multimodal data. 

   more » « less
2. Identifying Patterns for Neurological Disabilities by Integrating Discrete Wavelet Transform and Visualization

   https://doi.org/10.3390/app14010273  

   Ji, Soo Yeon ; Jayarathna, Sampath ; Perrotti, Anne M. ; Kardiasmenos, Katrina ; Jeong, Dong Hyun ( January 2024 , Applied Sciences)

   Neurological disabilities cause diverse health and mental challenges, impacting quality of life and imposing financial burdens on both the individuals diagnosed with these conditions and their caregivers. Abnormal brain activity, stemming from malfunctions in the human nervous system, characterizes neurological disorders. Therefore, the early identification of these abnormalities is crucial for devising suitable treatments and interventions aimed at promoting and sustaining quality of life. Electroencephalogram (EEG), a non-invasive method for monitoring brain activity, is frequently employed to detect abnormal brain activity in neurological and mental disorders. This study introduces an approach that extends the understanding and identification of neurological disabilities by integrating feature extraction, machine learning, and visual analysis based on EEG signals collected from individuals with neurological and mental disorders. The classification performance of four feature approaches—EEG frequency band, raw data, power spectral density, and wavelet transform—is assessed using machine learning techniques to evaluate their capability to differentiate neurological disabilities in short EEG segmentations (one second and two seconds). In detail, the classification analysis is conducted under two conditions: single-channel-based classification and region-based classification. While a clear demarcation between normal (healthy) and abnormal (neurological disabilities) EEG metrics may not be evident, their similarities and distinctions are observed through visualization, employing wavelet features. Notably, the frontal brain region (frontal lobe) emerges as a crucial area for distinguishing abnormalities among different brain regions. Also, the integration of wavelet features and visual analysis proves effective in identifying and understanding neurological disabilities. 

   more » « less
3. Development of an Adaptive Artifact Subspace Reconstruction Based on Hebbian/Anti-Hebbian Learning Networks for Enhancing BCI Performance

   https://doi.org/10.1109/TNNLS.2022.3174528  

   Tsai, Bo-Yu ; Diddi, Sandeep Vara ; Ko, Li-Wei ; Wang, Shuu-Jiun ; Chang, Chi-Yuan ; Jung, Tzyy-Ping ( June 2022 , IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems)

   Brain-computer interface (BCI) actively translates the brain signals into executable actions by establishing direct communication between the human brain and external devices. Recording brain activity through electroencephalography (EEG) is generally contaminated with both physiological and nonphysiological artifacts, which significantly hinders the BCI performance. Artifact subspace reconstruction (ASR) is a well-known statistical technique that automatically removes artifact components by determining the rejection threshold based on the initial reference EEG segment in multichannel EEG recordings. In real-world applications, the fixed threshold may limit the efficacy of the artifact correction, especially when the quality of the reference data is poor. This study proposes an adaptive online ASR technique by integrating the Hebbian/anti-Hebbian neural networks into the ASR algorithm, namely, principle subspace projection ASR (PSP-ASR) and principal subspace whitening ASR (PSW-ASR) that segmentwise self-organize the artifact subspace by updating the synaptic weights according to the Hebbian and anti-Hebbian learning rules. The effectiveness of the proposed algorithm is compared to the conventional ASR approaches on benchmark EEG dataset and three BCI frameworks, including steady-state visual evoked potential (SSVEP), rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP), and motor imagery (MI) by evaluating the root-mean-square error (RMSE), the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), the Pearson correlation, and classification accuracy. The results demonstrated that the PSW-ASR algorithm effectively removed the EEG artifacts and retained the activity-specific brain signals compared to the PSP-ASR, standard ASR (Init-ASR), and moving-window ASR (MW-ASR) methods, thereby enhancing the SSVEP, RSVP, and MI BCI performances. Finally, our empirical results from the PSW-ASR algorithm suggested the choice of an aggressive cutoff range of c = 1-10 for activity-specific BCI applications and a moderate range of for the benchmark dataset and general BCI applications. 

   more » « less
4. Classification of Adolescent Major Depressive Disorder via Static and Dynamic Connectivity

   https://doi.org/10.1109/JBHI.2020.3043427  

   Sen, Bhaskar ; Cullen, Kathryn R. ; Parhi, Keshab K. ( December 2020 , IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics)

   null (Ed.)

   Prior papers have explored the functional connectivity changes for patients suffering from major depressive disorder (MDD). This paper introduces an approach for classifying adolescents suffering from MDD using resting-state fMRI. Accurate diagnosis of MDD involves interviews with adolescent patients and their parents, symptom rating scales based on Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), behavioral observation as well as the experience of a clinician. Discovering predictive biomarkers for diagnosing MDD patients using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) scans can assist the clinicians in their diagnostic assessments. This paper investigates various static and dynamic connectivity measures extracted from resting-state fMRI for assisting with MDD diagnosis. First, absolute Pearson correlation matrices from 85 brain regions are computed and they are used to calculate static features for predicting MDD. A predictive sub-network extracted using sub-graph entropy classifies adolescent MDD vs. typical healthy controls with high accuracy, sensitivity and specificity. Next, approaches utilizing dynamic connectivity are employed to extract tensor based, independent component based and principal component based subject specific attributes. Finally, features from static and dynamic approaches are combined to create a feature vector for classification. A leave-one-out cross-validation method is used for the final predictor performance. Out of 49 adolescents with MDD and 33 matched healthy controls, a support vector machine (SVM) classifier using a radial basis function (RBF) kernel using differential sub-graph entropy combined with dynamic connectivity features classifies MDD vs. healthy controls with an accuracy of 0.82 for leave-one-out cross-validation. This classifier has specificity and sensitivity of 0.79 and 0.84, respectively. This performance demonstrates the utility of MRI based diagnosis of psychiatric disorders like MDD using a combination of static and dynamic functional connectivity features of the brain. 

   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