| Literature DB >> 29541014 |
Enas Abdulhay1, Maha Alafeef1, Arwa Abdelhay2, Areen Al-Bashir1.
Abstract
This paper presents an accurate nonlinear classification method that can help physicians diagnose seizure in electroencephalographic (EEG) signal characterized by a disturbance in temporal and spectral content. This is accomplished by applying four steps. First, different EEG signals containing healthy, ictal and seizure-free (inter-ictal) activities are decomposed by empirical mode decomposition method. The instantaneous amplitudes and frequencies of resulted bands (intrinsic mode functions, IMF) are then tracked by the direct quadrature method (DQ). In contrast to other approaches, DQ cancels the effect of amplitude modulation on frequency calculation. The dissociation between instantaneous amplitude and frequency information is therefore fully achieved to avoid features confusion. Afterwards, the Shannon entropy values of both sets of instantaneous values (amplitudes and frequencies)-related to every IMF-are calculated. Finally, the obtained entropy values are classified by random forest tree. The proposed procedure yields 100% accuracy for (healthy)/(ictal) and 98.3-99.7% for (healthy)/(ictal)/(interictal) classification problems. The suggested method is hence robust, accurate, fast, user-friendly, data driven with open access interpretability.Entities:
Keywords: Decomposition; Direct quadrature; EEG; Entropy; Forest tree; Ictal; Instantaneous
Year: 2017 PMID: 29541014 PMCID: PMC5840222 DOI: 10.1007/s40846-017-0239-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Med Biol Eng ISSN: 1609-0985 Impact factor: 1.553
Fig. 1Suggested steps of EEG signals classification
Fig. 2IMFs issued from EMD decomposition of a signal from the inter-ictal dataset F
A sample of entropy values of instantaneous frequencies and amplitudes for the different IMFs scales and classes
| f1 | f2 | f3 | f4 | f5 | f6 | f7 | f8 | f9 | f10 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| −26.234 | −14.3255 | −8.18907 | −5.11555 | −3.15719 | −1.81752 | −1.12649 | −0.33245 | −0.30425 | −0.14302 |
| −23.6085 | −14.6468 | −9.34704 | −4.75152 | −2.7267 | −1.25881 | −0.4931 | −0.26888 | −0.18206 | −0.1572 |
| −22.8174 | −18.7521 | −14.9188 | −14.1352 | −11.0446 | −10.5738 | −5.96037 | −3.99148 | −2.25113 | −1.2081 |
| −20.4639 | −18.2399 | −15.9141 | −10.4648 | −6.53297 | −3.61999 | −1.45707 | −0.97 | −0.51422 | −0.30243 |
| −25.3151 | −15.5234 | −9.29302 | −4.96115 | −2.31489 | −1.21359 | −0.78082 | −0.36471 | −0.2023 | −0.04874 |
| −24.9437 | −15.5585 | −7.24111 | −3.84451 | −1.79333 | −1.04621 | −0.76207 | −0.44181 | −0.1288 | −0.09514 |
| −22.5967 | −21.9553 | −17.1007 | −11.0622 | −8.5602 | −5.17107 | −4.63393 | −2.58222 | −1.33832 | −0.34815 |
| −23.6338 | −17.9279 | −15.3715 | −14.3116 | −12.8275 | −8.51 | −6.3042 | −5.29912 | −3.10582 | −1.74943 |
Z healthy, S ictal, F inter-ictal (seizure zone), N inter-ictal (opposite hemisphere), f, a entropy of instantaneous frequency and amplitude
Results of classification (normal/ictal EEG)
| Statistic (overall accuracy = 100%) | Class: normal | Class: ictal |
|---|---|---|
| Sensitivity | 100% | 100% |
| Specificity | 100% | 100% |
| Positive likelihood ratio | ||
| Negative likelihood ratio | 0 | 0 |
| Class prevalence | 50.00% | 50.00% |
| Positive predictive value | 100% | 100% |
| Negative predictive value | 100% | 100% |
Results of classification (normal/ictal EEG) in literature using the same EEG database
| The datasets | Method | Achieved accuracy (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Normal and ictal | Neuro-fuzzy methods applied to entropy [ | 92.2 |
| ANOVA applied to higher order statistics and complexity measures [ | 92.7 | |
| Clustering applied to Hilbert transform [ | 94 | |
| Expert model applied to discrete wavelet transform [ | 95 | |
| Evaluated results of sample entropy (SampEn) and distribution entropy (DistEn) for EEG segments [ | 96 | |
| PCA, KNN and SVM classification applied to statistical features [ | 96 | |
| Artificial neural network applied to nonlinear features [ | 97.2 | |
| Hyperbolic tangent—tangent plot [ | 97.4 | |
| Decision tree applied to Fourier transform [ | 98.7 | |
| Recurrent neural network applied to T–F features [ | 99.6 | |
| Artificial neural network applied to T–F Wigner–Ville features [ | 100 |
Results of classification (normal/ictal/inter-ictal EEG)
| Statistic (overall accuracy = 99.7%) | Class: normal | Class: ictal | Class: inter-ictal (epileptic zone) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sensitivity | 100% | 100% | 99% |
| Specificity | 100% | 99.5% | 100% |
| Positive likelihood ratio | 200 | ||
| Negative likelihood ratio | 0 | 0 | 0.01 |
| Class prevalence | 33.33% | 33.33% | 33.33% |
| Positive predictive value | 100% | 99.01% | 100% |
| Negative predictive value | 100% | 100% | 99.5% |
Results of classification (normal/ictal/inter-ictal EEG) in literature using the same EEG database
| The datasets | Method | Achieved accuracy (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Normal, ictal and inter-ictal (seizure zone) | Neurofuzzy network applied to discrete wavelet transform [ | 85.9 |
| Genetic programming, K-nearest neighbour classifier [ | 93 | |
| Lyapunov exponents, artificial neural network [ | 95 | |
| Recurrent neural network applied to Lyapunov exponents [ | 96.8 | |
| Wavelet transform, K-nearest neighbour classifier [ | 97 | |
| SVM applied to fractal features [ | 97.1 | |
| Exploiting temporal correlation of EMD IMFs [ | 98.1 | |
| Naïve Bayes applied to second order difference plot (SODP) [ | 98.7 | |
| Statistical pattern recognition applied to wavelet transform [ | 99 | |
| Artificial neural network applied to time frequency features [ | 99.2 | |
| Normal, ictal, inter-ictal (seizure zone) and inter-ictal (opposite hemisphere) | Combined DWT and EMD applied to Morlet kernel [ | 88.4 |
| Hyperbolic tangent—tangent plot [ | 92.8 | |
| Wavelet decomposition was done up to fourth level, followed by the calculation of inter quartile range (IQR) [ | 95.6 | |
| Stochastic relevance analysis of short–time EEG rhythms [ | 96.6 | |
| Artificial neural network classifier with spectral features [ | 97 | |
| Artificial neural network applied to time frequency features [ | 97.7 |
Result of classification (normal/ictal/inter-ictal (F) EEG) versus number of IMFs taken into account in classification
| Number of IMFs | Achieved accuracies | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Healthy | Ictal | Inter-ictal (F) | Overall | |
| 1 | 93 | 96 | 88 | 92.3 |
| 2 | 97 | 97 | 93 | 95.7 |
| 3 | 99 | 97 | 97 | 97.7 |
| 4 | 100 | 98 | 95 | 97.7 |
| 5 | 100 | 100 | 98 | 99.3 |
| 6 | 98 | 98 | 99 | 98.3 |
| 7 | 100 | 97 | 99 | 98.7 |
| 8 | 100 | 99 | 97 | 98.3 |
| 9 | 98 | 98 | 98 | 98 |
| 10 | 100 | 99 | 93 | 97.3 |
| 11 | 100 | 99 | 95 | 98 |
| 12 | 100 | 100 | 95 | 98.4 |
| 13 | 100 | 98 | 94 | 97.4 |
| 14 | 100 | 100 | 99 | 99.7 |
Fig. 3Relative contribution of every feature
Fig. 4a 2-D distribution of entropy values for IMFs of scale 1 (blue normal, red ictal, green inter-ictal). X-axis frequency entropy. Y axis amplitude entropy. b 2-D distribution of entropy values for IMFs of scale 2 (blue normal, red ictal, green inter-ictal). X-axis frequency entropy. Y-axis amplitude entropy. c 2-D distribution of entropy values for IMFs of scale 3 (blue normal, red ictal, green inter-ictal). X-axis frequency entropy. Y-axis amplitude entropy. d 2-D distribution of entropy values for IMFs of scale 4 (blue normal, red ictal, green inter-ictal). X-axis frequency entropy. Y-axis amplitude entropy. e 2-D distribution of entropy values for IMFs of scale 5 (blue normal, red ictal, green inter-ictal). X-axis frequency entropy. Y-axis amplitude entropy
Results of classification (normal/ictal/inter-ictal (F), inter-ictal (N) EEG)
| Statistic (overall accuracy = 98.3%) | Class: normal | Class: ictal | Class: inter–ictal (epileptic zone + opposite hemisphere) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sensitivity | 99% | 97% | 98.5% |
| Specificity | 99.33% | 99.67% | 98.0% |
| Positive likelihood ratio | 148.5 | 291 | 49.25 |
| Negative likelihood ratio | 0.01 | 0.03 | 0.02 |
| Class prevalence | 25% | 25% | 50% |
| Positive predictive value | 98.02% | 98.98% | 98.01% |
| Negative predictive value | 99.67% | 99.01% | 98.49% |