Seizure Onset Detection by

Analyzing Long Duration EEG Signals

Presented By:
Mayank Chawla
 Content
 Problem statement
 Introduction
• Epilepsy
• EEG & Recording
• Data Base
 Work done
 Performance Evaluation
 Result & Discussion
 Conclusion
 References
Why automatic seizure detection?

• Second most common brain disorder after stroke.

• 50 million patients world-wide.
• Each year, 2.4 million new cases are estimated to occur globally.
• Around 35 million people have no access to appropriate
treatment.
• Can be controlled if properly diagnosed and treated but
continuous monitoring of EEG recording is tedious.
• Thus, need of an automated system that can easily detect
seizure.

WHO(2012) URL: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs999/en/index.html, (Last accessed in feb 2015).

INTRODUCTION
 Epilepsy & EEG

• Epilepsy: Pathological condition characterized by spontaneous and

unpredictable occurrence of seizures.
• Caused by sudden, usually brief, excessive electrical discharges in a group of
brain cells.
• These electrical activities are recorded using EEG machines.
• Electroencephalogram (EEG) is the recording of electrical activity along the
scalp produced by the firing of neurons within the brain.
 (a) left and (b) above the head

THE 10 -20
System
• a
 Database used

• The database used is of CHB-MIT EEG database.

• This data was recorded at Children’s Hospital Boston and consisting
of EEG recordings from 23 pediatric subjects grouped in 24 cases.
• Sampling frequency used in recording of all EEG signals is 256Hz
• Total data consists of 916 hours of continuously recorded EEG and
including total 198 seizures.
• In most of the cases 23 channel EEG signal recording was done but
in few cases it is done using 24 or 26 channels.
• EEG electrode positions were used international 10-20 system for
recording of these signals.

EEG database Online Available at www.physionet.com

WORK DONE
 General Block Diagram of
Automatic Seizure Detector

Raw EEG Signal Wavelet

Training &
Decomposition
Training
testing
&Testing

K
L

Classifier
Classifier
 Method Used
The algorithm used is explained in brief as follows:
• The segmentation of long duration EEG signal was done by using rectangular window of M points
of each channel. This result in X number of epochs per channel.
• The Daubechies 6 wavelet with level k was used to get various approximate and detailed
coefficients of segmented EEG signals. Two statistical features (MAD and IQR) without wavelet
decomposition were also used to improve the overall performance.
• Among k levels of decomposition only W number of detailed coefficients and last approximate
coefficient were used because of the fact that seizures occur between 5-40 Hz.
• Mean, energy and entropy were calculated over selected wavelet coefficients for every epoch in
each channel. These parameters serves as few representative of many wavelet coefficients.
• To reduce size of feature vector, average of these three wavelet based parameters and two time
domain features without wavelet decomposition have been used. This also decreases
computational complexity.
• These selected features with and without wavelet decomposition were given to linear classifier to
detect seizure with minimum latency.
Feature Extraction
 Features with Wavelet
Decomposition
• The wavelet transform (WT) are used for analysis of non-stationary signals. Since the EEG is non-
stationary in nature, it is a good choice to use wavelet transform in comparison to other
transforms.
• The major advantage of WT over FFT and STFT is its good time-frequency resolution for all
frequency ranges. Because of this reason wavelet transform based features are used in proposed
work.
• The Daubechies 6 wavelet with level 5 was used to get various approximate and detailed
coefficients of segmented EEG signals. Among 5 levels of decomposition only 3 number of detailed
coefficients (D3, D4 and D5) and last approximate coefficient A5 were used because of the fact that
seizures occur between 0-40 Hz .
• Mean, energy and entropy were calculated over four selected wavelet coefficients (last three detail
and one approximate coefficients) for every epoch in each channel.
 Features without Wavelet
Decomposition
• Two statistical features; Mean Absolute Deviation and Interquartile Range were also used to
improve the overall performance of seizure onset detection method.
• MAD and IQR values were calculated per epoch basis for each channel on raw EEG signals.
• The mean absolute deviation (MAD) is the average distance between each data value and the
mean of total number of samples m and it is the good measure of variability .

• where n is the channel number, x is the frame number and S is the sample value.
• Interquartile range is also a measure of variability. It is the difference between the first and K
third
quartiles,i.e. L
IQR = Q3- Q1
• where, Q1 and Q3 are the first and third quartile respectively.
• The first and third quartiles are defined as 25% of the data lie below Q1 (and 75% is above Q1) and
25% of the data lie above Q3 (and 75% is below Q3) respectively.
Classification
 Classifier Used
• After feature extraction, all the selected features are applied as input to the last stage of seizure
onset detector i.e. classifier.
• Classifier is used to make decision that a segmented EEG belongs to seizure state or normal state.
• Classifier can be linear or non linear. Linear classifiers are cheaper and simple to use in comparison
to non linear classifiers such as SVM and ANN. Hence in the present work, the algorithm is
implemented by using linear classifier.
• For training of the classifier, minimum 60% of seizures were used and remaining were used for
testing to identify seizure or normal EEG signals.
• Classifier was also trained with one hour duration normal signal.
• Normal and seizure activities of EEG signal were assigned 0 and 1 label respectively.
• The classifier performance was measured using sensitivity and latency.
• The proposed algorithm used linear classifier available in MATLAB Statistics Toolbox and evaluated
on a computer with CPU 2.20 GHz and RAM 4 GB.
 Training & Testing Example for Patient 1

S1

N – EEGs from Normal State S2

S – EEGs from Seizure State
Ntrain S3

Classifier OUTPUT
S5 Class

Training Set 0 for N

1 for S

S6
Ntest
S7

Testing Set
3-D scalp maps for patient 1 and 2
respectively showing epileptic regions
with high magnitude of field distribution

Patient 1 Patient 2
Box plots of IQR and MAD values of
normal and seizure states for Patient 1

600
300
500
250

MAD Values
IQR Values

400
200
300
150

200
100

100 50

Normal Seizure Normal Seizure

EEG signal states of P1 EEG signal states of P1

 Performance Evaluation
Sensitivity:Sensitivity was measured as the
percentage of test seizure events marked by
experts during which classifier label 1 i.e.
seizure at least for one or more epochs.
Latency : Latency was measured as the delay
between the seizure onset event and the end
of the first seizure epoch within that event
which was actually marked as a seizure by the
expert.
Table 1: Classifier performance for different features

Result
Table 1: Performance of the proposed seizure onset detection method
Patient Number of seizures Number of seizures Sensitivity = Mean Latency (sec)
used for training used for testing #detected seizures/
#test seizures (%)
1 5 2 100% 0
2 2 1 100% 1
3 5 2 100% 1
4 3 1 100% 1
5 3 2 100% 7
6 6 4 100% 0.8
7 2 1 100% 4
8 3 2 100% 4
9 3 1 100% 1
10 3 1 100% 3.6
11 2 1 100% 3
12 8 4 100% 0
13 5 3 100% 1.7
14 12 8 100% 0.1
15 6 4 100% 1.2
16 2 1 100% 0
17 4 2 100% 1
18 2 1 100% 0
19 5 3 100% 8
20 3 1 100% 1
21 2 1 100% 2
22 4 3 100% 0.3
23 10 6 100% 2.3
Average Performance 100% 1.9
 Papers Mean Sensitivity Mean Latency
(Year) (%) (Seconds)

96 5.2
Shoeb et al, (2010)
97.6 4.95
Lee et al, (2011)
Sukumaran et al, (2012) 100 4.5

Balakrishnan et al, (2012) 97 7.878

Khan et al, (2012) 100 3.2

Kim et al, (2013) 94.1 12.96

Nabeel et al, (2014) 98.6 1.76

Rezaee et al, (2015) 98 4.7

Orosco et al, (2016) 92.6 0.2

This work 100 1.9

Table 1: Classifier performance for different features Patient Number

Contd..
Average latency for each patient

Latency(in seconds)
7 8
4 4 3.6 3
1.7 2 2.3
1 1 1 0.8 1 1.2 1 1 0.3
0 0 0.1 0 0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Patient Number
EEG Signal of Patient 1 & 2 during first
six seconds of seizure under test

1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 5
Channel numbers

6 6
7 7

Channel numbers
8 8
9 9
10 10
11 11
12 12
13 13
14 14
15 15
16 16
17 17
18 SEIZURE ONSET 0 sec 18
19 19 SEIZURE ONSET 1sec
20 20 S
21 21
22 22
23 23
1720 1721 1722 1723 1724 1725 3369 3370 3371 3372 3373 3374
Time in seconds
Time in seconds

Patient 1 Patient 2
 Comparison
Table 2. Comparison of results obtained by the proposed feature set and that of the earlier reported
works based on the same datasets.
Papers Mean Sensitivity Mean Latency
(Year) (%) (Seconds)

96 4.2
Shoeb et al. [2], (2010)
97.6 4.95
Lee et al. [16], (2011)
Sukumaran et al. [17], (2012) 100 4.5

Balakrishnan et al. [19], (2012) 97 7.878

Khan et al. [9], (2012) 100 3.2

Kim et al. [18],(2013) 94.1 12.96

Nabeel et al., (2014) 98.6 1.76

Orosco et al.

This work 100 1.9

 Discussion

• Wavelet based features in combination with MAD and IQR are found to be
good features.
• It is clear from the Table 2 that the proposed methodology provides better
sensitivity and latency as compared to the existing methodologies.
• Apart from sensitivity and latency, one another major consideration is that the
method of seizure onset detection must use lower feature vector dimension to
reduce the overall complexity of the algorithm.
• One of the recent work by using same CHB-MIT database, Nabeel et. al.
reported sensitivity of 98.5% and 1.76 seconds latency. The work had little better
latency in comparison to proposed method but the numbers of features for
classification of normal and seizure activities of EEG were also more.
• The dimension of feature vector used by the group was 20*23 for each epoch,
which is very large in comparison of the size used in present study i.e. only 14 for
every epoch of all 23 channels. Hence, the present method is not improved in
terms of latency but sensitivity is improved from 98.5% to 100% with lower feature
vector dimension.
 Conclusion
• The conclusion from the present study is that for the ease of epileptic
patients and their families, seizure onset detectors with low latency are
required.
• A new combination of wavelet based and statistical features is
presented, which shows better latency and sensitivity.
• The use of linear classifier also simplifies the system.
• The present algorithm may be used for real time medical application of
seizure onset detection with some modifications.
• In future, the proposed algorithm may be implemented by using
intracranial EEG signals.
 References
• Acharya, U. R., Sree, S. V., Swapna, G., Martis, R. J., & Suri, J. S.: Automated EEG analysis of epilepsy: a review. Knowledge-Based
Systems,45, pp. 147-165 (2013)
• Shoeb, A. H., & Guttag, J. V.: Application of machine learning to epileptic seizure detection. In: Proceedings of the 27th
International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML-10), pp. 975-982 (2010)
• Zhou, W., Liu, Y., Yuan, Q., & Li, X.: Epileptic seizure detection using lacunarity and Bayesian linear discriminant analysis in
intracranial EEG. Biomedical Engineering, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 60.12, pp. 3375-3381 (2013)
• Nijsen, T. M., Aarts, R. M., Cluitmans, P. J., & Griep, P. A.: Time-frequency analysis of accelerometry data for detection of
myoclonic seizures. Information Technology in Biomedicine, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 14.5, pp. 1197-1203 (2010)
• Khan, Y. U., Farooq, O., & Sharma, P.: Automatic detection of seizure onset in pediatric EEG. International Joural of Embeded
Systems and Applications, vol. 2.3, pp. 81-89 (2012)
• Shoeb, A., Edwards, H., Connolly, J., Bourgeois, B., Treves, S. T., & Guttag, J.: Patient-specific seizure onset detection. Epilepsy &
Behavior, vol. 5.4, pp. 483-498 (2004)
• Rafiuddin, N., Uzzaman Khan, Y., & Farooq, O.: Feature extraction and classification of EEG for automatic seizure detection. In:
Multimedia, Signal Processing and Communication Technologies (IMPACT), 2011 International Conference on, pp.184-187. IEEE,
(2011, December)
• Liang, S. F., Shaw, F. Z., Young, C. P., Chang, D. W., & Liao, Y. C.: A closed-loop brain computer interface for real-time seizure
detection and control. In: Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC), 2010 Annual International Conference of the
IEEE, pp. 4950-4953. IEEE, (2010, August)
• Ahammad, N., Fathima, T., & Joseph, P.: Detection of Epileptic Seizure Event and Onset Using EEG. BioMed research
international 2014 (2014)
• Lee, K. H., Kung, S. Y., & Verma, N.: Improving kernel-energy trade-offs for machine learning in implantable and wearable
biomedical applications. In: Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), 2011 IEEE International Conference on, pp. 1597-
1600. IEEE, (2011, May)
• Sukumaran, D., Enyi, Y., Shuo, S., Basu, A., Zhao, D., & Dauwels, J.: A low-power, reconfigurable smart sensor system for EEG
acquisition and classification. In: IEEE Asia Pacific Conference on Circuits and Systems (APCCAS), pp.9-12. IEEE, (2012)
• Kim, T., Artan, N. S., Selesnick, I. W., & Chao, H. J.: Seizure detection methods using a cascade architecture for real-time
implantable devices. In: Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC), 2013 35th Annual International Conference of the
IEEE, pp. 1005-1008. IEEE, (2013, July)
Number of Patients 23

Number of Patients 23

Sampling Frequency 256 Hz

Electrodes Placement 10-20 international system

EEG channels 23

Total Duration 916

Total Seizures 198