Aljoscha Thomschewski1,2,3, Nathalie Gerner1, Patrick B Langthaler1,2, Eugen Trinka1, Arne C Bathke2,4, Jürgen Fell5, Yvonne Höller6. 1. Department of Neurology, Christian-Doppler Medical Center, Paracelsus Medical University, Salzburg, Austria. 2. Department of Mathematics, Paris-Lodron University of Salzburg, Salzburg, Austria. 3. Department of Psychology, Paris-Lodron University of Salzburg, Salzburg, Austria. 4. Intelligent Data Analytics Lab Salzburg, Paris-Lodron University of Salzburg, Salzburg, Austria. 5. Department of Epileptology, University Hospital Bonn, Bonn, Germany. 6. Faculty of Psychology, University of Akureyri, Akureyri, Iceland.
Abstract
Background: High frequency oscillations (HFOs) have attracted great interest among neuroscientists and epileptologists in recent years. Not only has their occurrence been linked to epileptogenesis, but also to physiologic processes, such as memory consolidation. There are at least two big challenges for HFO research. First, detection, when performed manually, is time consuming and prone to rater biases, but when performed automatically, it is biased by artifacts mimicking HFOs. Second, distinguishing physiologic from pathologic HFOs in patients with epilepsy is problematic. Here we automatically and manually detected HFOs in intracranial EEGs (iEEG) of patients with epilepsy, recorded during a visual memory task in order to assess the feasibility of the different detection approaches to identify task-related ripples, supporting the physiologic nature of HFOs in the temporal lobe. Methods: Ten patients with unclear seizure origin and bilaterally implanted macroelectrodes took part in a visual memory consolidation task. In addition to iEEG, scalp EEG, electrooculography (EOG), and facial electromyography (EMG) were recorded. iEEG channels contralateral to the suspected epileptogenic zone were inspected visually for HFOs. Furthermore, HFOs were marked automatically using an RMS detector and a Stockwell classifier. We compared the two detection approaches and assessed a possible link between task performance and HFO occurrence during encoding and retrieval trials. Results: HFO occurrence rates were significantly lower when events were marked manually. The automatic detection algorithm was greatly biased by filter-artifacts. Surprisingly, EOG artifacts as seen on scalp electrodes appeared to be linked to many HFOs in the iEEG. Occurrence rates could not be associated to memory performance, and we were not able to detect strictly defined "clear" ripples. Conclusion: Filtered graphoelements in the EEG are known to mimic HFOs and thus constitute a problem. So far, in invasive EEG recordings mostly technical artifacts and filtered epileptiform discharges have been considered as sources for these "false" HFOs. The data at hand suggests that even ocular artifacts might bias automatic detection in invasive recordings. Strict guidelines and standards for HFO detection are necessary in order to identify artifact-derived HFOs, especially in conditions when cognitive tasks might produce a high amount of artifacts.
Background: High frequency oscillations (HFOs) have attracted great interest among neuroscientists and epileptologists in recent years. Not only has their occurrence been linked to epileptogenesis, but also to physiologic processes, such as memory consolidation. There are at least two big challenges for HFO research. First, detection, when performed manually, is time consuming and prone to rater biases, but when performed automatically, it is biased by artifacts mimicking HFOs. Second, distinguishing physiologic from pathologic HFOs in patients with epilepsy is problematic. Here we automatically and manually detected HFOs in intracranial EEGs (iEEG) of patients with epilepsy, recorded during a visual memory task in order to assess the feasibility of the different detection approaches to identify task-related ripples, supporting the physiologic nature of HFOs in the temporal lobe. Methods: Ten patients with unclear seizure origin and bilaterally implanted macroelectrodes took part in a visual memory consolidation task. In addition to iEEG, scalp EEG, electrooculography (EOG), and facial electromyography (EMG) were recorded. iEEG channels contralateral to the suspected epileptogenic zone were inspected visually for HFOs. Furthermore, HFOs were marked automatically using an RMS detector and a Stockwell classifier. We compared the two detection approaches and assessed a possible link between task performance and HFO occurrence during encoding and retrieval trials. Results: HFO occurrence rates were significantly lower when events were marked manually. The automatic detection algorithm was greatly biased by filter-artifacts. Surprisingly, EOG artifacts as seen on scalp electrodes appeared to be linked to many HFOs in the iEEG. Occurrence rates could not be associated to memory performance, and we were not able to detect strictly defined "clear" ripples. Conclusion: Filtered graphoelements in the EEG are known to mimic HFOs and thus constitute a problem. So far, in invasive EEG recordings mostly technical artifacts and filtered epileptiform discharges have been considered as sources for these "false" HFOs. The data at hand suggests that even ocular artifacts might bias automatic detection in invasive recordings. Strict guidelines and standards for HFO detection are necessary in order to identify artifact-derived HFOs, especially in conditions when cognitive tasks might produce a high amount of artifacts.
Authors: Aaron M Spring; Daniel J Pittman; Yahya Aghakhani; Jeffrey Jirsch; Neelan Pillay; Luis E Bello-Espinosa; Colin Josephson; Paolo Federico Journal: Clin Neurophysiol Date: 2016-12-30 Impact factor: 3.708
Authors: Maeike Zijlmans; Gregory A Worrell; Matthias Dümpelmann; Thomas Stieglitz; Andrei Barborica; Marcel Heers; Akio Ikeda; Naotaka Usui; Michel Le Van Quyen Journal: Epilepsia Date: 2017-06-16 Impact factor: 5.864
Authors: Carolina Migliorelli; Joan F Alonso; Sergio Romero; Rafał Nowak; Antonio Russi; Miguel A Mañanas Journal: J Neural Eng Date: 2017-08 Impact factor: 5.379
Authors: J Jacobs; R Staba; E Asano; H Otsubo; J Y Wu; M Zijlmans; I Mohamed; P Kahane; F Dubeau; V Navarro; J Gotman Journal: Prog Neurobiol Date: 2012-04-03 Impact factor: 11.685
Authors: Shuang Wang; Irene Z Wang; Juan C Bulacio; John C Mosher; Jorge Gonzalez-Martinez; Andreas V Alexopoulos; Imad M Najm; Norman K So Journal: Epilepsia Date: 2012-10-25 Impact factor: 5.864