| Literature DB >> 35741663 |
Abstract
Alcohol dependence is a common mental disease worldwide. Excessive alcohol consumption may lead to alcoholism and many complications. In severe cases, it will lead to inhibition and paralysis of the centers of the respiratory and circulatory systems and even death. In addition, there is a lack of effective standard test procedures to detect alcoholism. EEG signals are data obtained by measuring brain changes in the cerebral cortex and can be used for the diagnosis of alcoholism. Existing diagnostic methods mainly employ machine learning techniques, which rely on human intervention to learn. In contrast, deep learning, as an end-to-end learning method, can automatically extract EEG signal features, which is more convenient. Nonetheless, there are few studies on the classification of alcohol's EEG signals using deep learning models. Therefore, in this paper, a new deep learning method is proposed to automatically extract and classify EEG's features. The method first adopts a multilayer discrete wavelet transform to denoise the input data. Then, the denoised data are used as input, and a convolutional neural network and bidirectional long short-term memory network are used for feature extraction. Finally, alcohol EEG signal classification is performed. The experimental results show that the method proposed in this study can be utilized to effectively diagnose patients with alcoholism, achieving a diagnostic accuracy of 99.32%, which is better than most current algorithms.Entities:
Keywords: EEG signals; alcoholism; bidirectional long short-term memory; convolutional neural network; discrete wavelet transform; machine learning
Year: 2022 PMID: 35741663 PMCID: PMC9220822 DOI: 10.3390/brainsci12060778
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Brain Sci ISSN: 2076-3425
Figure 1Sample (a) and sample (b) are alcoholic and normal EEG signals, respectively.
Figure 2LSTM network structure.
Figure 3BI-LSTM network structure.
Figure 4CNN network structure.
Figure 5CNN network structure.
Figure 6CNN network structure.
Figure 7Training accuracy and training loss.
Performance of different deep learning models in binary classification tasks.
| Methods | Accuracy | Precision | Recall | F1-Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CNN | 96.95% | 96.05% | 95.70% | 96.58% |
| Bi-LSTM | 91.61% | 91.60% | 90.41% | 91.39% |
| LSTM | 88.24% | 88.42% | 87.98% | 89.21% |
| CNN+Bi-LSTM | 97.29% | 96.89% | 97.13% | 96.93% |
| Our model | 99.32% | 99.01% | 98.87% | 98.93% |
Mainstream classification methods and comparison of our proposed models.
| Comparison of Different Models | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model | XGBoost | CatBoost | RF | SVM | KNN | Our Model |
| Accuracy | 79.58% | 94.14% | 87.98% | 95.63% | 94.23% | 99.32% |
Comparison of DWT-CNN-Bi-LSTM architecture with existing methods.
| Reference | Feature Extraction | Classifier | Accuracy |
|---|---|---|---|
| Acharya et al. [ | Approximate Entrop | SVM | 91.7% |
| Faust et al. [ | Wavelet Packet | K-NN | 95.8% |
| Patidar et al. [ | Tunable-Q Wavelet | LS-SVM | 97.02% |
| Farsi et al. [ | Improved Binary | ANN | 93% |
| Sharma et al. [ | Three-band Orthogonal | LS-SVM | 97.08% |
| Ildar et al. [ | Wavelet transforms | CNN | 86% |
| Bavkar et al. [ | Linear | K-NN | 98.25% |
| Mukhtar H et al. [ | CNN | CNN with 3 | 98.00% |
| N Kumari et al. [ | None | CNN | 92.77% |
| Our model | Discrete Wavelet | CNN | 99.32% |