| Literature DB >> 32299460 |
S M Shafiul Hasan1, Masudur R Siddiquee2, Roozbeh Atri2, Rodrigo Ramon2, J Sebastian Marquez2, Ou Bai2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Prediction of Gait intention from pre-movement Electroencephalography (EEG) signals is a vital step in developing a real-time Brain-computer Interface (BCI) for a proper neuro-rehabilitation system. In that respect, this paper investigates the feasibility of a fully predictive methodology to detect the intention to start and stop a gait cycle by utilizing EEG signals obtained before the event occurrence.Entities:
Keywords: Brain-computer interface (BCI); Discrete wavelet transform; Electroencephalography (EEG); Gait intention prediction; Hjorth parameters
Year: 2020 PMID: 32299460 PMCID: PMC7164221 DOI: 10.1186/s12984-020-00675-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Neuroeng Rehabil ISSN: 1743-0003 Impact factor: 4.262
Demographic characteristics of the subjects
| Subjects | Gender | Age | Weight (kg) | Height (cm) | Amputated limb |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S1 | Male | 26 | 96 | 171 | N/A |
| S2 | Female | 23 | 62 | 158 | N/A |
| S3 | Male | 29 | 71 | 170 | N/A |
| S4 | Male | 33 | 62 | 152 | N/A |
| S5 | Male | 30 | 98 | 185 | N/A |
| S6 | Male | 26 | 61 | 170 | N/A |
| S7 | Female | 26 | 61 | 165 | N/A |
| A1 | Male | 47 | 92 | 170 | Right foot; Trans-Tibial |
| A2 | Male | 53 | 115 | 167 | Right foot; Trans-Tibial |
Fig. 1The eight channel electrode system in the International 10-20 system. The green marked channels are the data acquisition channels while the grey marked channel AFz is the ground channel, and the red marked channel FpZ is the reference channel. The image is adapted from the article in [39]
Fig. 2The cleaning process of EEG data from subject 5. a Shows the performance of ASR in removing eye movement artifacts and unnatural high amplitude noise. Moreover, channel Pz was marked as a flat channel and was rejected by the algorithm. b and c shows the power spectrum and scalp distribution of a rejected Independent Component. The IC was rejected due to its low contribution to the scalp data variance and unusual peaks at higher frequencies like 60 and 70 Hz. d shows the EEG signal obtained after ASR operation and artifactual IC rejection
Different levels of coefficients and their corresponding brain waves
| Coefficients | Frequency Range (approx.) | Sub-band |
|---|---|---|
| First level detail coefficient (cD1) | 62.5-125 | - |
| Second level detail coefficient (cD2) | 31.25-62.5 | Gamma |
| Third level detail coefficient (cD3) | 15.63-31.25 | Beta |
| Fourth level detail coefficient (cD4) | 7.81-15.63 | Alpha |
| Fourth level approximate coefficients (cA4) | 0-7.81 | Delta and theta |
Fig. 3A 20-s segment of pressure sensor and right TA EMG data from Subject 1. The red line in the figure corresponds to the time of gait starting, while the black line corresponds to the time of gait stopping. The resting and walking times were chosen by taking equidistant points from two adjacent gait starting and stopping times. After marking all crucial time points, data windows of different lengths, and relative positions corresponding to those events were taken for further processing and feature extraction. In the figure, the segmentation procedure of [-1,0] data interval is shown. The data windows were marked by -1 and 0 where 0 denotes the extracted event times and -1 denotes the time points one second before the event. The extracted data windows were labeled to the corresponding events. After that, two two-class classification problems were addressed: ’Rest vs. Start’ and ’Walk vs. Stop.’ This segmentation and windowing approach ensured no overlapping between data windows corresponding to different classes reducing the chance of data contamination
‘Rest’ vs. ‘Start’ classification accuracy, sensitivity and specificity for all the subjects using different data windows
| Subjects | Data windows | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Accuracy(%) | [-1 1] | [-1.5 0.5] | [-2 0] | [-1.5 0] | [-1 0] | |
| S1 | 75.46 | 73.07 | 74.77 | |||
| S2 | 69.23 | 70.71 | 66.18 | |||
| S3 | 76.45 | 74.12 | 76.15 | |||
| S4 | 71.20 | 66.66 | 69.81 | |||
| S5 | 73.52 | 74.31 | 74.97 | |||
| S6 | 75.13 | 73.04 | 75.00 | |||
| S7 | 73.74 | 71.65 | 71.97 | |||
| A1 | 68.88 | 70.98 | 71.96 | |||
| A2 | 81.49 | 81.55 | 81.73 | |||
| Sensitivity(%) | S1 | 63.00 | 58.71 | 58.90 | ||
| S2 | 68.30 | 49.29 | 59.56 | |||
| S3 | 78.90 | 69.57 | 80.95 | |||
| S4 | 58.05 | 55.00 | 66.24 | |||
| S5 | 60.05 | 72.20 | 66.48 | |||
| S6 | 64.46 | 53.93 | 68.21 | |||
| S7 | 66.04 | 63.85 | 59.62 | |||
| A1 | 56.96 | 64.11 | 63.39 | |||
| A2 | 67.50 | 70.00 | 69.17 | |||
| Specificity(%) | S1 | 86.19 | 87.52 | 86.95 | ||
| S2 | 70.11 | 72.80 | 72.58 | |||
| S3 | 74.05 | 78.43 | 71.29 | |||
| S4 | 76.95 | 74.95 | 73.57 | |||
| S5 | 79.95 | 67.14 | 78.41 | |||
| S6 | 79.46 | 68.93 | 86.96 | |||
| S7 | 76.92 | 79.29 | 74.07 | |||
| A1 | 80.18 | 73.21 | 77.32 | |||
| A2 | 90.00 | 91.67 | 80.83 | |||
‘Walk’ vs. ‘Stop’ classification accuracy, sensitivity and specificity for all the subjects using different data windows
| Subjects | Data windows | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Accuracy(%) | [-1 1] | [-1.5 0.5] | [-2 0] | [-1.5 0] | [-1 0] | |
| S1 | 74.15 | 70.64 | 73.83 | |||
| S2 | 70.85 | 68.46 | 70.54 | |||
| S3 | 72.94 | 69.36 | 71.18 | |||
| S4 | 69.05 | 65.96 | 68.41 | |||
| S5 | 70.15 | 70.30 | 70.51 | |||
| S6 | 69.79 | 70.42 | 71.25 | |||
| S7 | 71.94 | 69.78 | 70.54 | |||
| A1 | 79.83 | 79.79 | 79.74 | |||
| A2 | 80.89 | 80.00 | 80.06 | |||
| Sensitivity(%) | S1 | 60.57 | 65.29 | 67.71 | ||
| S2 | 65.05 | 52.42 | 67.36 | |||
| S3 | 71.86 | 66.00 | 70.33 | |||
| S4 | 64.57 | 60.81 | 65.95 | |||
| S5 | 54.56 | 69.78 | 64.67 | |||
| S6 | 53.57 | 67.68 | 56.25 | |||
| S7 | 57.36 | 51.65 | 64.01 | |||
| A1 | 72.32 | 69.82 | 69.64 | |||
| A2 | 73.33 | 73.33 | 71.67 | |||
| Specificity(%) | S1 | 75.67 | 80.05 | 78.52 | ||
| S2 | 78.68 | 73.68 | 76.37 | |||
| S3 | 72.24 | 72.10 | 68.76 | |||
| S4 | 65.76 | 77.86 | 75.62 | |||
| S5 | 68.02 | 70.82 | 77.25 | |||
| S7 | 82.80 | 74.89 | 77.09 | |||
| S6 | 71.43 | 84.46 | 69.29 | |||
| A1 | 82.32 | 88.75 | ||||
| A2 | 80.83 | 90.83 | 88.33 | |||
Mean classification accuracy, sensitivity and specificity with standard deviation for ‘Rest’ vs. ‘Start’ classification
| Data windows | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [-1 1] | [-1.5 0.5] | [-2 0] | [-1.5 0] | [-1 0] | |
| Mean accuracy(%) | 74.72 ±4.42 | 73.14 ±3.92 | 73.98 ±4.62 | ||
| Mean sensitivity(%) | 66.10 ±6.73 | 66.41 ±10.54 | 65.32 ±8.38 | ||
| Mean specificity(%) | 82.46 ±4.86 | 79.58 ±9.22 | 79.93 ±5.50 | ||
Mean classification accuracy, sensitivity and specificity with standard deviation for ‘Walk’ vs. ‘Stop’ classification
| Data windows | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [-1 1] | [-1.5 0.5] | [-2 0] | [-1.5 0] | [-1 0] | |
| Mean accuracy(%) | 74.17 ±4.05 | 71.86 ±4.88 | 74.12 ±4.12 | ||
| Mean sensitivity(%) | 64.57 ±7.74 | 66.14 ±6.95 | 66.49 ±7.84 | ||
| Mean specificity(%) | 76.90 ±7.77 | 77.24 ±6.42 | 77.78 ±7.01 | ||
Fig. 4‘Rest’ vs. ‘Start’ classification performance with standard deviation using different data windows
Fig. 5‘Walk’ vs. ‘Stop’ classification performance with standard deviation using different data windows
Result of t-test with Bonferroni-Holm correction
| ’Rest’ vs. ’Start’ | Data Window | [-2 0] | [-1.5 0] | [-1 0] |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [-1 1] | H1 | H1 | H0 | |
| [-1.5 0.5] | H0 | H0 | H0 | |
| ’Walk’ vs. ’Stop’ | [-1 1] | H1 | H0 | H0 |
| [-1.5 0.5] | H1 | H0 | H0 | |