OBJECTIVE: Interictal spikes in intracranial EEG (iEEG) may correlate with epileptogenic cortex, but review of interictal iEEG is labor intensive. Accurate automated spike detectors are necessary for understanding the role of spikes in epileptogenesis. METHODS: The sensitivity, accuracy and reproducibility of three automated iEEG spike detectors were compared against two human EEG readers using iEEG segments from eight patients. A consensus set of detections was generated for detector calibration. Spike verification was calculated after both human EEG readers independently reviewed all detections. RESULTS: Humans and two of the three automated detectors demonstrated comparable accuracy. In four patients, automated spike detection sensitivity was >70% and accuracy was >50%. In the remaining four patients, EEG background morphology resulted in poorer performance. Blinded human verification accuracy was 76.7+/-6.6% for computer-detected spikes, and 84.5+/-4.1% for human-detected spikes. CONCLUSIONS: Automated iEEG spike detectors perform comparably to humans, but sensitivity and accuracy are patient dependent. Humans verified the majority of computer-detected spikes. SIGNIFICANCE: In some patients automated detectors may be used for mapping spike occurrences in epileptic networks. This may reveal associations between spike distribution, seizure onset, and pathology.
OBJECTIVE: Interictal spikes in intracranial EEG (iEEG) may correlate with epileptogenic cortex, but review of interictal iEEG is labor intensive. Accurate automated spike detectors are necessary for understanding the role of spikes in epileptogenesis. METHODS: The sensitivity, accuracy and reproducibility of three automated iEEG spike detectors were compared against two human EEG readers using iEEG segments from eight patients. A consensus set of detections was generated for detector calibration. Spike verification was calculated after both human EEG readers independently reviewed all detections. RESULTS:Humans and two of the three automated detectors demonstrated comparable accuracy. In four patients, automated spike detection sensitivity was >70% and accuracy was >50%. In the remaining four patients, EEG background morphology resulted in poorer performance. Blinded human verification accuracy was 76.7+/-6.6% for computer-detected spikes, and 84.5+/-4.1% for human-detected spikes. CONCLUSIONS: Automated iEEG spike detectors perform comparably to humans, but sensitivity and accuracy are patient dependent. Humans verified the majority of computer-detected spikes. SIGNIFICANCE: In some patients automated detectors may be used for mapping spike occurrences in epileptic networks. This may reveal associations between spike distribution, seizure onset, and pathology.
Authors: Daniel T Barkmeier; Aashit K Shah; Danny Flanagan; Marie D Atkinson; Rajeev Agarwal; Darren R Fuerst; Kourosh Jafari-Khouzani; Jeffrey A Loeb Journal: Clin Neurophysiol Date: 2011-10-26 Impact factor: 3.708
Authors: Joshua M Diamond; Julio I Chapeton; William H Theodore; Sara K Inati; Kareem A Zaghloul Journal: Clin Neurophysiol Date: 2019-07-02 Impact factor: 3.708
Authors: R Zelmann; S Beriault; M M Marinho; K Mok; J A Hall; N Guizard; C Haegelen; A Olivier; G B Pike; D L Collins Journal: Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg Date: 2015-03-26 Impact factor: 2.924
Authors: Eric D Marsh; Bradley Peltzer; Merritt W Brown; Courtney Wusthoff; Phillip B Storm; Brian Litt; Brenda E Porter Journal: Epilepsia Date: 2009-09-22 Impact factor: 5.864
Authors: William C Stacey; Spencer Kellis; Bradley Greger; Christopher R Butson; Paras R Patel; Trevor Assaf; Temenuzhka Mihaylova; Simon Glynn Journal: Epilepsia Date: 2013-05-03 Impact factor: 5.864
Authors: Erin C Conrad; Samuel B Tomlinson; Jeremy N Wong; Kelly F Oechsel; Russell T Shinohara; Brian Litt; Kathryn A Davis; Eric D Marsh Journal: Brain Date: 2020-02-01 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Samuel B Tomlinson; Camilo Bermudez; Chiara Conley; Merritt W Brown; Brenda E Porter; Eric D Marsh Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2016-12-19 Impact factor: 4.003