4.7 Article

Comparison of different input modalities and network structures for deep learning-based seizure detection

Journal

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Volume 10, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-56958-y

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) [NRF-2014R1A1A1003382, NRF-2017R1D1A1B03030998]
  2. Korean government

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The manual review of an electroencephalogram (EEG) for seizure detection is a laborious and error-prone process. Thus, automated seizure detection based on machine learning has been studied for decades. Recently, deep learning has been adopted in order to avoid manual feature extraction and selection. In the present study, we systematically compared the performance of different combinations of input modalities and network structures on a fixed window size and dataset to ascertain an optimal combination of input modalities and network structures. The raw time-series EEG, periodogram of the EEG, 2D images of short-time Fourier transform results, and 2D images of raw EEG waveforms were obtained from 5-s segments of intracranial EEGs recorded from a mouse model of epilepsy. A fully connected neural network (FCNN), recurrent neural network (RNN), and convolutional neural network (CNN) were implemented to classify the various inputs. The classification results for the test dataset showed that CNN performed better than FCNN and RNN, with the area under the curve (AUC) for the receiver operating characteristics curves ranging from 0.983 to 0.984, from 0.985 to 0.989, and from 0.989 to 0.993 for FCNN, RNN, and CNN, respectively. As for input modalities, 2D images of raw EEG waveforms yielded the best result with an AUC of 0.993. Thus, CNN can be the most suitable network structure for automated seizure detection when applied to the images of raw EEG waveforms, since CNN can effectively learn a general spatially-invariant representation of seizure patterns in 2D representations of raw EEG.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available