| Literature DB >> 24616892 |
Nabeel Ahammad1, Thasneem Fathima1, Paul Joseph1.
Abstract
This study proposes a method of automatic detection of epileptic seizure event and onset using wavelet based features and certain statistical features without wavelet decomposition. Normal and epileptic EEG signals were classified using linear classifier. For seizure event detection, Bonn University EEG database has been used. Three types of EEG signals (EEG signal recorded from healthy volunteer with eye open, epilepsy patients in the epileptogenic zone during a seizure-free interval, and epilepsy patients during epileptic seizures) were classified. Important features such as energy, entropy, standard deviation, maximum, minimum, and mean at different subbands were computed and classification was done using linear classifier. The performance of classifier was determined in terms of specificity, sensitivity, and accuracy. The overall accuracy was 84.2%. In the case of seizure onset detection, the database used is CHB-MIT scalp EEG database. Along with wavelet based features, interquartile range (IQR) and mean absolute deviation (MAD) without wavelet decomposition were extracted. Latency was used to study the performance of seizure onset detection. Classifier gave a sensitivity of 98.5% with an average latency of 1.76 seconds.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24616892 PMCID: PMC3925519 DOI: 10.1155/2014/450573
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.411
Figure 1Subband decomposition of discrete wavelet transform implementation.
An overview of CHB-MIT database.
| Patient | Age | Gender | Number of seizures |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 11 | F | 7 |
| 2 | 11 | M | 3 |
| 3 | 14 | F | 6 |
| 4 | 22 | M | 4 |
| 5 | 7 | F | 5 |
| 6 | 1.5 | F | 3 |
| 7 | 14.5 | F | 3 |
| 8 | 3.5 | M | 5 |
| 9 | 10 | F | 4 |
| 10 | 3 | M | 4 |
| 11 | 12 | F | 3 |
| 12 | 2 | F | 40 |
| 13 | 3 | F | 11 |
| 14 | 9 | F | 8 |
| 15 | 16 | M | 18 |
| 16 | 7 | F | 10 |
| 17 | 12 | F | 3 |
| 18 | 18 | F | 6 |
| 19 | 19 | F | 3 |
| 20 | 6 | F | 8 |
| 21 | 13 | F | 4 |
| 22 | 9 | F | 3 |
| 23 | 6 | F | 7 |
| 24 | — | — | 16 |
Figure 2Approximation coefficient at fourth decomposition level of data set E (first frame of first channel).
Figure 3Detail wavelet coefficient at fourth decomposition level of data set E (first frame of first channel).
Figure 4Detail wavelet coefficients at third decomposition level of data set E (first frame of first channel).
Extracted features of first frame of data set A.
| Extracted features | D3 | D4 | A4 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Maximum | 75.7695 | 120.0146 | 192.677 |
| Minimum | −92.3744 | −105.366 | −172.499 |
| Mean | 1.6022 | 2.1703 | 34.4130 |
| Standard deviation | 41.1865 | 60.3469 | 96.4623 |
| Entropy | 4.522 | 5.47 | 1.77 |
| Energy | 5.6 | 6.199 | 1.79 |
Extracted features of first frame of data set D.
| Extracted features | D3 | D4 | A4 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Maximum | 44.34 | 88.24 | 320.44 |
| Minimum | −30.926 | −89.15 | −175.76 |
| Mean | 1.65 | −2.63 | 94.15 |
| Standard deviation | 19.4 | 43.6354 | 126.3 |
| Entropy | 1.258 | 3.24 | 4.3 |
| Energy | 8.2 | 2.7 | 4.5 |
Extracted features of first frame of data set E.
| Extracted features | D3 | D4 | A4 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Maximum | 1524.4000 | 1420.100 | 1639.200 |
| Minimum | −1508.9000 | −117.0000 | −1917.600 |
| Mean | 65.5614 | −77.2298 | 281.4010 |
| Standard deviation | 716.0870 | 614.2615 | 1138.500 |
| Entropy | 2.38 | 8.9 | 2.39 |
| Energy | 1.7 | 6.9 | 2.39 |
Confusion matrix of linear classifier output.
| Testing set | Set A | Set D | Set E |
|---|---|---|---|
| Set A | 514 | 86 | 0 |
| Set D | 135 | 456 | 9 |
| Set E | 9 | 45 | 456 |
Classification accuracies.
| Statistical parameters | Db2 |
|---|---|
| Specificity | 85.6% |
| Sensitivity (set D) | 76% |
| Sensitivity (set E) | 91% |
|
| |
| Total classification accuracy | 84.2% |
Number of seizures used for training and testing.
| Patient number | Total number of seizures | Number of seizures used for training | Number of seizures used for testing |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 7 | 5 | 2 |
| 2 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| 3 | 6 | 4 | 2 |
| 4 | 4 | 3 | 1 |
| 5 | 5 | 3 | 2 |
| 6 | 5 | 3 | 2 |
| 7 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| 8 | 5 | 3 | 2 |
| 9 | 4 | 3 | 1 |
| 10 | 4 | 3 | 1 |
| 11 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| 12 | 40 | 24 | 16 |
| 13 | 11 | 8 | 3 |
| 14 | 8 | 5 | 3 |
| 15 | 18 | 11 | 7 |
| 16 | 10 | 6 | 4 |
| 17 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| 18 | 6 | 4 | 2 |
| 19 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| 20 | 8 | 5 | 3 |
| 21 | 4 | 3 | 1 |
| 22 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| 23 | 7 | 4 | 3 |
| 24 | 16 | 10 | 6 |
Figure 5Mean latency of each patient.
Figure 6Sensitivity of the detector.
Figure 7False detection percentage of each patient.