Stephen V Gliske1, Zachary T Irwin2, Cynthia Chestek3, William C Stacey4. 1. Department of Neurology, University of Michigan, MI, USA. Electronic address: sgliske@umich.edu. 2. Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Michigan, MI, USA. Electronic address: irwinz@umich.edu. 3. Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Michigan, MI, USA. Electronic address: cchestek@umich.edu. 4. Department of Neurology, University of Michigan, MI, USA; Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Michigan, MI, USA. Electronic address: william.stacey@umich.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: High Frequency Oscillations (HFOs) are being studied as a biomarker of epilepsy, yet it is unknown how various acquisition parameters at different centers affect detection and analysis of HFOs. This paper specifically quantifies effects of sampling rate (FS) and anti-aliasing filter (AAF) positions on automated HFO detection. METHODS: HFOs were detected on intracranial EEG recordings (17 patients) with 5kHz FS. HFO detection was repeated on downsampled and/or filtered copies of the EEG data, mimicking sampling rates and low-pass filter settings of various acquisition equipment. For each setting, we compared the HFO detection sensitivity, HFO features, and ability to identify the ictal onset zone. RESULTS: The relative sensitivity remained above 80% for either FS ⩾2kHz or AAF ⩾500Hz. HFO feature distributions were consistent (AUROC<0.7) down to 1kHz FS or 200Hz AAF. HFO rate successfully identified ictal onset zone over most settings. HFO peak frequency was highly variable under most parameters (Spearman correlation<0.5). CONCLUSIONS: We recommend at least FS ⩾2kHz and AAF ⩾500Hz to detect HFOs. Additionally, HFO peak frequency is not robust at any setting: the same HFO event can be variably classified either as a ripple (<200Hz) or fast ripple (>250Hz) under different acquisition settings. SIGNIFICANCE: These results inform clinical centers on requirements to analyze HFO rates and features.
OBJECTIVE: High Frequency Oscillations (HFOs) are being studied as a biomarker of epilepsy, yet it is unknown how various acquisition parameters at different centers affect detection and analysis of HFOs. This paper specifically quantifies effects of sampling rate (FS) and anti-aliasing filter (AAF) positions on automated HFO detection. METHODS: HFOs were detected on intracranial EEG recordings (17 patients) with 5kHz FS. HFO detection was repeated on downsampled and/or filtered copies of the EEG data, mimicking sampling rates and low-pass filter settings of various acquisition equipment. For each setting, we compared the HFO detection sensitivity, HFO features, and ability to identify the ictal onset zone. RESULTS: The relative sensitivity remained above 80% for either FS ⩾2kHz or AAF ⩾500Hz. HFO feature distributions were consistent (AUROC<0.7) down to 1kHz FS or 200Hz AAF. HFO rate successfully identified ictal onset zone over most settings. HFO peak frequency was highly variable under most parameters (Spearman correlation<0.5). CONCLUSIONS: We recommend at least FS ⩾2kHz and AAF ⩾500Hz to detect HFOs. Additionally, HFO peak frequency is not robust at any setting: the same HFO event can be variably classified either as a ripple (<200Hz) or fast ripple (>250Hz) under different acquisition settings. SIGNIFICANCE: These results inform clinical centers on requirements to analyze HFO rates and features.
Authors: Justin A Blanco; Matt Stead; Abba Krieger; Jonathan Viventi; W Richard Marsh; Kendall H Lee; Gregory A Worrell; Brian Litt Journal: J Neurophysiol Date: 2010-09-01 Impact factor: 2.714
Authors: Justin A Blanco; Matt Stead; Abba Krieger; William Stacey; Douglas Maus; Eric Marsh; Jonathan Viventi; Kendall H Lee; Richard Marsh; Brian Litt; Gregory A Worrell Journal: Brain Date: 2011-09-08 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Greg A Worrell; Andrew B Gardner; S Matt Stead; Sanqing Hu; Steve Goerss; Gregory J Cascino; Fredric B Meyer; Richard Marsh; Brian Litt Journal: Brain Date: 2008-02-07 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Pablo M Casillas-Espinosa; Pedro Andrade; Cesar Santana-Gomez; Tomi Paananen; Gregory Smith; Idrish Ali; Robert Ciszek; Xavier Ekolle Ndode-Ekane; Rhys D Brady; Jussi Tohka; Matthew R Hudson; Piero Perucca; Emma L Braine; Riikka Immonen; Noora Puhakka; Sandy R Shultz; Nigel C Jones; Richard J Staba; Asla Pitkänen; Terence J O'Brien Journal: Epilepsy Res Date: 2019-04-27 Impact factor: 3.045
Authors: Vikram R Rao; Matthew K Leonard; Jonathan K Kleen; Ben A Lucas; Emily A Mirro; Edward F Chang Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2017-04-07 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Jimmy C Yang; Angelique C Paulk; Pariya Salami; Sang Heon Lee; Mehran Ganji; Daniel J Soper; Daniel Cleary; Mirela Simon; Douglas Maus; Jong Woo Lee; Brian V Nahed; Pamela S Jones; Daniel P Cahill; Garth Rees Cosgrove; Catherine J Chu; Ziv Williams; Eric Halgren; Shadi Dayeh; Sydney S Cash Journal: Clin Neurophysiol Date: 2021-08-02 Impact factor: 4.861
Authors: Jason T Moyer; Vadym Gnatkovsky; Tomonori Ono; Jakub Otáhal; Joost Wagenaar; William C Stacey; Jeffrey Noebels; Akio Ikeda; Kevin Staley; Marco de Curtis; Brian Litt; Aristea S Galanopoulou Journal: Epilepsia Date: 2017-11 Impact factor: 5.864
Authors: Stephen V Gliske; Zachary T Irwin; Cynthia Chestek; Garnett L Hegeman; Benjamin Brinkmann; Oren Sagher; Hugh J L Garton; Greg A Worrell; William C Stacey Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2018-06-01 Impact factor: 14.919