More Like this

1. The Perils and Pitfalls of Block Design for EEG Classification Experiments

   https://doi.org/10.1109/TPAMI.2020.2973153  

   Li, Ren ; Johansen, Jared S. ; Ahmed, Hamad ; Ilyevsky, Thomas V. ; Wilbur, Ronnie B. ; Bharadwaj, Hari M. ; Siskind, Jeffrey Mark ( January 2021 , IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence)

   null (Ed.)

   A recent paper [1] claims to classify brain processing evoked in subjects watching ImageNet stimuli as measured with EEG and to employ a representation derived from this processing to construct a novel object classifier. That paper, together with a series of subsequent papers [2] , [3] , [4] , [5] , [6] , [7] , [8] , claims to achieve successful results on a wide variety of computer-vision tasks, including object classification, transfer learning, and generation of images depicting human perception and thought using brain-derived representations measured through EEG. Our novel experiments and analyses demonstrate that their results crucially depend on the block design that they employ, where all stimuli of a given class are presented together, and fail with a rapid-event design, where stimuli of different classes are randomly intermixed. The block design leads to classification of arbitrary brain states based on block-level temporal correlations that are known to exist in all EEG data, rather than stimulus-related activity. Because every trial in their test sets comes from the same block as many trials in the corresponding training sets, their block design thus leads to classifying arbitrary temporal artifacts of the data instead of stimulus-related activity. This invalidates all subsequent analyses performed on this data in multiple published papers and calls into question all of the reported results. We further show that a novel object classifier constructed with a random codebook performs as well as or better than a novel object classifier constructed with the representation extracted from EEG data, suggesting that the performance of their classifier constructed with a representation extracted from EEG data does not benefit from the brain-derived representation. Together, our results illustrate the far-reaching implications of the temporal autocorrelations that exist in all neuroimaging data for classification experiments. Further, our results calibrate the underlying difficulty of the tasks involved and caution against overly optimistic, but incorrect, claims to the contrary. 

   more » « less
2. Fundamental Limits and Tradeoffs in Invariant Representation Learning

   Zhao, Han ; Dan, Chen ; Aragam, Bryon ; Jaakkola, Tommi S. ; Gordon, Geoffrey J. ; Ravikumar, Pradeep ( November 2022 , Journal of machine learning research)

   Adrian Weller (Ed.)

   A wide range of machine learning applications such as privacy-preserving learning, algorithmic fairness, and domain adaptation/generalization among others, involve learning invariant representations of the data that aim to achieve two competing goals: (a) maximize information or accuracy with respect to a target response, and (b) maximize invariance or independence with respect to a set of protected features (e.g. for fairness, privacy, etc). Despite their wide applicability, theoretical understanding of the optimal tradeoffs — with respect to accuracy, and invariance — achievable by invariant representations is still severely lacking. In this paper, we provide an information theoretic analysis of such tradeoffs under both classification and regression settings. More precisely, we provide a geometric characterization of the accuracy and invariance achievable by any representation of the data; we term this feasible region the information plane. We provide an inner bound for this feasible region for the classification case, and an exact characterization for the regression case, which allows us to either bound or exactly characterize the Pareto optimal frontier between accuracy and invariance. Although our contributions are mainly theoretical, a key practical application of our results is in certifying the potential sub-optimality of any given representation learning algorithm for either classification or regression tasks. Our results shed new light on the fundamental interplay between accuracy and invariance, and may be useful in guiding the design of future representation learning algorithms. 

   more » « less
3. Modeling naturalistic face processing in humans with deep convolutional neural networks

   https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2304085120  

   Jiahui, Guo ; Feilong, Ma ; Visconti di Oleggio Castello, Matteo ; Nastase, Samuel A. ; Haxby, James V. ; Gobbini, M. Ida ( October 2023 , Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences)

   Deep convolutional neural networks (DCNNs) trained for face identification can rival and even exceed human-level performance. The ways in which the internal face representations in DCNNs relate to human cognitive representations and brain activity are not well understood. Nearly all previous studies focused on static face image processing with rapid display times and ignored the processing of naturalistic, dynamic information. To address this gap, we developed the largest naturalistic dynamic face stimulus set in human neuroimaging research (700+ naturalistic video clips of unfamiliar faces). We used this naturalistic dataset to compare representational geometries estimated from DCNNs, behavioral responses, and brain responses. We found that DCNN representational geometries were consistent across architectures, cognitive representational geometries were consistent across raters in a behavioral arrangement task, and neural representational geometries in face areas were consistent across brains. Representational geometries in late, fully connected DCNN layers, which are optimized for individuation, were much more weakly correlated with cognitive and neural geometries than were geometries in late-intermediate layers. The late-intermediate face-DCNN layers successfully matched cognitive representational geometries, as measured with a behavioral arrangement task that primarily reflected categorical attributes, and correlated with neural representational geometries in known face-selective topographies. Our study suggests that current DCNNs successfully capture neural cognitive processes for categorical attributes of faces but less accurately capture individuation and dynamic features.

    

   more » « less
4. Multi-Level Feature Abstraction from Convolutional Neural Networks for Multimodal Biometric Identification

   https://doi.org/10.1109/ICPR.2018.8545061  

   Soleymani, Sobhan ; Dabouei, Ali ; Kazemi, Hadi ; Dawson, Jeremy ; Nasrabadi, Nasser M. ( August 2018 , International Conference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR))

   In this paper, we propose a deep multimodal fusion network to fuse multiple modalities (face, iris, and fingerprint) for person identification. The proposed deep multimodal fusion algorithm consists of multiple streams of modality-specific Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs), which are jointly optimized at multiple feature abstraction levels. Multiple features are extracted at several different convolutional layers from each modality-specific CNN for joint feature fusion, optimization, and classification. Features extracted at different convolutional layers of a modality-specific CNN represent the input at several different levels of abstract representations. We demonstrate that an efficient multimodal classification can be accomplished with a significant reduction in the number of network parameters by exploiting these multi-level abstract representations extracted from all the modality-specific CNNs. We demonstrate an increase in multimodal person identification performance by utilizing the proposed multi-level feature abstract representations in our multimodal fusion, rather than using only the features from the last layer of each modality-specific CNNs. We show that our deep multi-modal CNNs with multimodal fusion at several different feature level abstraction can significantly outperform the unimodal representation accuracy. We also demonstrate that the joint optimization of all the modality-specific CNNs excels the score and decision level fusions of independently optimized CNNs. 

   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