Literature DB >> 23214662

Nonrandomness, nonlinear dependence, and nonstationarity of electroencephalographic recordings from epilepsy patients.

Ralph G Andrzejak1, Kaspar Schindler, Christian Rummel.   

Abstract

To derive tests for randomness, nonlinear-independence, and stationarity, we combine surrogates with a nonlinear prediction error, a nonlinear interdependence measure, and linear variability measures, respectively. We apply these tests to intracranial electroencephalographic recordings (EEG) from patients suffering from pharmacoresistant focal-onset epilepsy. These recordings had been performed prior to and independent from our study as part of the epilepsy diagnostics. The clinical purpose of these recordings was to delineate the brain areas to be surgically removed in each individual patient in order to achieve seizure control. This allowed us to define two distinct sets of signals: One set of signals recorded from brain areas where the first ictal EEG signal changes were detected as judged by expert visual inspection ("focal signals") and one set of signals recorded from brain areas that were not involved at seizure onset ("nonfocal signals"). We find more rejections for both the randomness and the nonlinear-independence test for focal versus nonfocal signals. In contrast more rejections of the stationarity test are found for nonfocal signals. Furthermore, while for nonfocal signals the rejection of the stationarity test increases the rejection probability of the randomness and nonlinear-independence test substantially, we find a much weaker influence for the focal signals. In consequence, the contrast between the focal and nonfocal signals obtained from the randomness and nonlinear-independence test is further enhanced when we exclude signals for which the stationarity test is rejected. To study the dependence between the randomness and nonlinear-independence test we include only focal signals for which the stationarity test is not rejected. We show that the rejection of these two tests correlates across signals. The rejection of either test is, however, neither necessary nor sufficient for the rejection of the other test. Thus, our results suggest that EEG signals from epileptogenic brain areas are less random, more nonlinear-dependent, and more stationary compared to signals recorded from nonepileptogenic brain areas. We provide the data, source code, and detailed results in the public domain.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23214662     DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevE.86.046206

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Phys Rev E Stat Nonlin Soft Matter Phys        ISSN: 1539-3755


  25 in total

1.  A comparison of different synchronization measures in electroencephalogram during propofol anesthesia.

Authors:  Zhenhu Liang; Ye Ren; Jiaqing Yan; Duan Li; Logan J Voss; Jamie W Sleigh; Xiaoli Li
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2015-09-08       Impact factor: 2.502

Review 2.  EEG-Based Epileptic Seizure Detection via Machine/Deep Learning Approaches: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Ijaz Ahmad; Xin Wang; Mingxing Zhu; Cheng Wang; Yao Pi; Javed Ali Khan; Siyab Khan; Oluwarotimi Williams Samuel; Shixiong Chen; Guanglin Li
Journal:  Comput Intell Neurosci       Date:  2022-06-17

3.  Classification of Focal and Non Focal Epileptic Seizures Using Multi-Features and SVM Classifier.

Authors:  N Sriraam; S Raghu
Journal:  J Med Syst       Date:  2017-09-02       Impact factor: 4.460

4.  Hybrid Convolutional Neural Network for Localization of Epileptic Focus Based on iEEG.

Authors:  Linfeng Sui; Xuyang Zhao; Qibin Zhao; Toshihisa Tanaka; Jianting Cao
Journal:  Neural Plast       Date:  2021-04-27       Impact factor: 3.599

5.  Automated Adult Epilepsy Diagnostic Tool Based on Interictal Scalp Electroencephalogram Characteristics: A Six-Center Study.

Authors:  John Thomas; Prasanth Thangavel; Wei Yan Peh; Jin Jing; Rajamanickam Yuvaraj; Sydney S Cash; Rima Chaudhari; Sagar Karia; Rahul Rathakrishnan; Vinay Saini; Nilesh Shah; Rohit Srivastava; Yee-Leng Tan; Brandon Westover; Justin Dauwels
Journal:  Int J Neural Syst       Date:  2021-01-12       Impact factor: 6.325

6.  Resected Brain Tissue, Seizure Onset Zone and Quantitative EEG Measures: Towards Prediction of Post-Surgical Seizure Control.

Authors:  Christian Rummel; Eugenio Abela; Ralph G Andrzejak; Martinus Hauf; Claudio Pollo; Markus Müller; Christian Weisstanner; Roland Wiest; Kaspar Schindler
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-10-29       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 7.  A Recent Investigation on Detection and Classification of Epileptic Seizure Techniques Using EEG Signal.

Authors:  Sani Saminu; Guizhi Xu; Zhang Shuai; Isselmou Abd El Kader; Adamu Halilu Jabire; Yusuf Kola Ahmed; Ibrahim Abdullahi Karaye; Isah Salim Ahmad
Journal:  Brain Sci       Date:  2021-05-20

Review 8.  Epileptic Seizures Detection Using Deep Learning Techniques: A Review.

Authors:  Afshin Shoeibi; Marjane Khodatars; Navid Ghassemi; Mahboobeh Jafari; Parisa Moridian; Roohallah Alizadehsani; Maryam Panahiazar; Fahime Khozeimeh; Assef Zare; Hossein Hosseini-Nejad; Abbas Khosravi; Amir F Atiya; Diba Aminshahidi; Sadiq Hussain; Modjtaba Rouhani; Saeid Nahavandi; Udyavara Rajendra Acharya
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2021-05-27       Impact factor: 3.390

9.  The accuracy of quantitative EEG biomarker algorithms depends upon seizure onset dynamics.

Authors:  Garnett Smith; William C Stacey
Journal:  Epilepsy Res       Date:  2021-06-24       Impact factor: 2.991

10.  All together now: Analogies between chimera state collapses and epileptic seizures.

Authors:  Ralph G Andrzejak; Christian Rummel; Florian Mormann; Kaspar Schindler
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2016-03-09       Impact factor: 4.379

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.