| Literature DB >> 36213561 |
Thalakola Syamsundararao1, A Selvarani2, R Rathi3, N Vini Antony Grace4, D Selvaraj5, Khalid M A Almutairi6, Wadi B Alonazi7, K S A Priyan8, Ramata Mosissa9.
Abstract
Electroencephalography (EEG) is crucial for epilepsy detection; however, detecting abnormalities takes experience and knowledge. The electroencephalogram (EEG) is a technology that measures brain motion and represents the brain's function. EEG is an effective instrument for deciphering the brain's complicated activity. The information contained in the EEG signal pertains to the electric functioning of the brain. Neurologists have typically used direct visual inspection to detect epileptogenic abnormalities. This method is time-consuming, restricted by technical artifacts, produces varying findings depending on the reader's level of experience, and is ineffective at detecting irregularities. As a result, developing automated algorithms for detecting anomalies in EEGs associated with epilepsy is critical. The construction of a novel class of convolutional neural networks (CNNs) for detecting aberrant waveforms and sensors in epilepsy EEGs is described in this research. In this study, EEG signals are analyzed using a convolutional neural network (CNN). For the automatic detection of abnormal and normal EEG indications, a novel deep one-dimensional convolutional neural network (1D CNN) model is suggested in this paper. The regular, pre-ictal, and seizure categories are detected using this approach. The proposed model achieves an accuracy of 85.48% and a reduced categorization error rate of 14.5%.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36213561 PMCID: PMC9519296 DOI: 10.1155/2022/1502934
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Contrast Media Mol Imaging ISSN: 1555-4309 Impact factor: 3.009
Figure 1Framework for EEG signal analysis.
Figure 2Steps for automatic detection of abnormal EEG signals.
Description values of affected role and assembly in TUH-EEG.
| Parameter | Affected role | Assembly | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Healthy | Unhealthy | Overall | Healthy | Unhealthy | Overall | |
| Training | 1238 | 894 | 2132 | 1370 | 1349 | 2719 |
| Evaluation | 149 | 106 | 255 | 152 | 127 | 279 |
| Overall | 1387 | 997 | 2384 | 1522 | 1473 | 2995 |
Patient gender ratio in the EEG given data set.
| Parameter | Training data set | Evaluation data set | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Patients | Files | Patients | Files | |
| Female (regular) | 690 | 765 | 85 | 86 |
| Female (irregular) | 456 | 680 | 52 | 64 |
| Male (regular) | 545 | 605 | 65 | 67 |
| Male (irregular) | 438 | 676 | 53 | 64 |
| Overall | 2129 | 2726 | 255 | 281 |
Figure 3A graphical representation of the EEG sensor locations.
Figure 4Block diagram of the 1D CNN structure.
Figure 5Distribution of EEG data utilized in the suggested algorithm's testing and training.
Figure 6T5 − O1 an d F4 − C4 EEG signal graphical representation.
Values for the deep 1D CNN model.
| Number | Elements | Standard values |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Optimization | A da m, beta 1=0.8 an d beta 2=0.99 |
| 2 | Rate of learning | 0.00001 |
| 3 | Error function | Cross categorical entropy |
| 4 | Iterations | 150 |
| 5 | Decay | 1 |
| 6 | Size of batch | 127 |
| 7 | Metrics | Precision |
Figure 7T5–O1 EEG signal data: (a) accuracy model and (b) loss model performance during the training stage.
Performance estimates of the model using T5 − O1 and F4 − C4 channels.
| Session | T5 − O1 channel | F4 − C4 channel | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Precision (%) | Rate of accuracy (%) | Recall (%) | Overall amount of data |
| Precision (%) | Rate of accuracy (%) | Recall (%) | Overall amount of data |
| |
| Usual EEG signal | 79.18 | 89.35 | 86.01 | 152 | 82.91 | 70.18 | 74.62 | 90.01 | 152 | 72.91 |
| Unusual EEG signal | 82.12 | 81.6 | 71.43 | 127 | 75.92 | 83.12 | 82.98 | 56.43 | 127 | 65.32 |
| Overall/avg. | 80.65 | 85.48 | 78.72 | 279 | 79.42 | 76.65 | 80.65 | 78.2 | 279 | 69.12 |
Figure 8F4–C4 EEG signal data: (a) accuracy model and (b) loss model performance during the training stage.
Comparison of existing mechanism and the proposed mechanism.
| Method | Accuracy (%) | Precision (%) | Recall (%) |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wavelet | 82.53 | 81.6 | 83.46 | — |
| DNN | 74.63 | 77.08 | 73.10 | 73.09% |
| Proposed | 85.48 | 76.65 | 78.2 | 69.12% |
Figure 9Level of training using T5–O1 and F4–C4 EEG signal channel.
Figure 10Performance comparisons of existing and proposed methods.