skip to main content
10.1145/3608251.3608292acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesiccmsConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Exploring the Efficacy of Explainable Deep Learning in Identifying Neuromarkers for Precise Prediction of Epilepsy and Causal Connectivity Analysis

Published:17 August 2023Publication History

ABSTRACT

Causal connectivity among the brain regions have been recently exploited information for discriminating epileptiforms to detect epileptic seizures. Published investigations to detect ictal, interictal, preictal EEG reported existence of long-range correlations of excitations within a functionally connected brain region and shifting of focus of excitations from one region to another region and increase or decrease of intensity in certain frequency-bands, which can be quantified using suitable measure of Granger causality (GC). Deep neural networks obviated explicit preprocessing and feature extraction. The proposed work employs temporal dilated convolutional network to estimate causal connectivity relations among brain-regions in various frequency-bands in distributed manner. It implicitly learns varying autoregressive-lag-orders using stacked layers and covers long range relationships using exponential update of layer-wise dilation-factor. Model training with several parameter-combinations were conducted over 10 subjects. The proposed model outperformed the existing approaches and baseline model in terms of accuracy, sensitivity, and false positive rate. Class-wise dominating features were obtained using statistical significance analysis followed by family wise error rate correction using Benjamini-Hochberg method.

References

  1. Jalil Rasekhi, Mohammad Reza Karami Mollaei, Mojtaba Bandarabadi, César A. Teixeira, and António Dourado. 2015. Epileptic seizure prediction based on ratio and differential linear univariate features. Journal of medical signals and sensors, 5(1), 1.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Ernesto Pereda, Antoni Gamundi, Rubén Rial, and Julián González. 1998. Non-linear behaviour of human EEG: fractal exponent versus correlation dimension in awake and sleep stages. Neuroscience letters, 250(2), 91-94.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Klaus Lehnertz, Florian Mormann, Hannes Osterhage, Andy Müller, Jens Prusseit, Anton Chernihovskyi, Matthäus Staniek, Dieter Krug, Stephan Bialonski, and Christian E. Elger. 2007. State-of-the-art of seizure prediction. Journal of Clinical Neurophy., 24(2), 147-153.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Klaus Lehnertz, Christian Geier, Thorsten Rings, and Kirsten Stahn. 2017. Capturing time-varying brain dynamics. EPJ Nonlinear Biomedical Physics, 5, 2Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Mark P Richardson. 2012. Large scale brain models of epilepsy: dynamics meets connectomics. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry, 83(12), 1238-1248.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Catalina Alvarado-Rojas, Valderrama, M., Fouad-Ahmed, A., Feldwisch-Drentrup, H., Ihle, M., Teixeira, C.A., Sales, F., Schulze-Bonhage, A., Adam, C., Dourado, A. and Charpier, S. 2014. Slow modulations of high-frequency activity (40-140-Hz) discriminate preictal changes in human focal epilepsy. Sci Rep, 4, 4545.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Florian Mormann, Ralph G. Andrzejak, Christian E. Elger, and Klaus Lehnertz. 2007. Seizure prediction: the long and winding road. Brain, 130(2), 314-333.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Etienne Labyt, Paul Frogerais, Laura Uva, Jean-Jacques Bellanger, and Fabrice Wendling. 2007. Modeling of entorhinal cortex and simulation of epileptic activity: insights into the role of inhibition-related parameters. IEEE Transactions on Information Technology in Biomedicine, 11(4), 450-461Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Michel Le Van Quyen, Richard Staba, Anatol Bragin, Clayton Dickson, Mario Valderrama, Itzhak Fried, and Jerome Engel. 2010. Large-scale microelectrode recordings of high-frequency gamma oscillations in human cortex during sleep. J. Neuroscience, 30(23), 7770-7782.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Mircea Steriade, Florin Amzica, and Diego Contreras. 1996. Synchronization of fast (30-40 Hz) spontaneous cortical rhythms during brain activation. Journal of Neuroscience, 16(1), 392-417.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Mircea Steriade. 2003. Neuronal substrates of sleep and epilepsy. Cambridge University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Jean‐Philippe Lachaux, Eugenio Rodriguez, Jacques Martinerie, and Francisco J. Varela. 1999. Measuring phase synchrony in brain signals. Human brain mapping, 8(4), 194-208.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Florian Mormann, Klaus Lehnertz, Peter David, and Christian E. Elger. 2000. Mean phase coherence as a measure for phase synchronization and its application to the EEG of epilepsy patients. Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena, 144(3-4), 358-369.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. María Eugenía López, Ricardo Bruna, Sara Aurtenetxe, José Ángel Pineda-Pardo, Alberto Marcos, Juan Arrazola, Ana Isabel Reinoso, Pedro Montejo, Ricardo Bajo, and Fernando Maestú. 2014. Alpha-band hypersynchronization in progressive mild cognitive impairment: a magnetoencephalography study. Journal of Neuroscience, 34(44), 14551-14559Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Pascal Fries. 2015. Rhythms for cognition: communication through coherence. Neuron, 88(1), 220-235.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Pilar Garcés, María Carmen Martín-Buro, and Fernando Maestú. 2016. Quantifying the test-retest reliability of magnetoencephalography resting-state functional connectivity. Brain connectivity, 6(6), 448-460.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Ricardo Bruña, Fernando Maestú, and Ernesto Pereda. 2018. Phase locking value revisited: teaching new tricks to an old dog. Journal of neural engineering, 15(5), 056011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Mike X Cohen. 2014. Analyzing neural time series data: theory and practice. MIT press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Tsungnan Lin, Bill G. Horne, Peter Tino, and C. Lee Giles. 1996. Learning long-term dependencies in NARX recurrent neural networks. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks, 7(6), 1329-1338.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Stefan Haufe, Vadim V. Nikulin, Klaus-Robert Müller, and Guido Nolte. 2013. A critical assessment of connectivity measures for EEG data: a simulation study. Neuroimage, 64, 120-133.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Tian Guo, and Tao Lin. 2018. Multi-variable LSTM neural network for autoregressive exogenous model. arXiv preprint arXiv:1806.06384.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Christian Szegedy, Wei Liu, Yangqing Jia, Pierre Sermanet, Scott Reed, Dragomir Anguelov, Dumitru Erhan, Vincent Vanhoucke, and Andrew Rabinovich. 2015. Going deeper with convolutions. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, Boston, MA, pp. 1–9Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. 2016. Deep residual learning for image recognition. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. Las Vegas, NV (2016). p. 770–8.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Christian Szegedy, Sergey Ioffe, Vincent Vanhoucke, and Alexander Alemi. 2017. Inception-v4, inception-resnet and the impact of residual connections on learning. In Thirty-first AAAI conference on artificial intelligenceGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Colin Lea, Michael D. Flynn, Rene Vidal, Austin Reiter, and Gregory D. Hager. 2017. Temporal convolutional networks for action segmentation and detection. In proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (pp. 156-165).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Bai, Shaojie, J. Zico Kolter, and Vladlen Koltun. 2018. Convolutional sequence modeling revisited.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Cheng Tong, Linghua Zhang, Hao Li, and Yin Ding. 2022. Temporal inception convolutional network based on multi‐head attention for ultra‐short‐term load forecasting. IET Generation, Transmission & Distribution.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Nauta, Meike, Doina Bucur, and Christin Seifert. 2019. Causal discovery with attention-based convolutional neural networks. Machine Learning and Knowledge Extraction, 1(1), 312-340.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Tank, Alex, Ian Covert, Nicholas Foti, Ali Shojaie, and Emily B. Fox. 2021. Neural granger causality. arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.05842v2.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Mona Hejazi, and Ali Motie Nasrabadi. 2019. Prediction of epilepsy seizure from multi-channel electroencephalogram by effective connectivity analysis using Granger causality and directed transfer function methods. Cognitive neurodynamics, 13, 461-473.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Siyi Tang, Jared A. Dunnmon, Khaled Saab, Xuan Zhang, Qianying Huang, Florian Dubost, Daniel L. Rubin, and Christopher Lee-Messer. 2021. Self-supervised graph neural networks for improved electroencephalographic seizure analysis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.08336.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Shinya Ito, Michael E. Hansen, Randy Heiland, Andrew Lumsdaine, Alan M. Litke, and John M. Beggs. (2011). Extending transfer entropy improves identification of effective connectivity in a spiking cortical network model. PloS one, 6(11), e27431.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Yoav Benjamini, Y., and Yosef Hochberg. 1995. Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal statistical society: series B (Methodological), 57(1), 289-300.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Exploring the Efficacy of Explainable Deep Learning in Identifying Neuromarkers for Precise Prediction of Epilepsy and Causal Connectivity Analysis

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Other conferences
          ICCMS '23: Proceedings of the 2023 15th International Conference on Computer Modeling and Simulation
          June 2023
          293 pages
          ISBN:9798400707919
          DOI:10.1145/3608251

          Copyright © 2023 ACM

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 17 August 2023

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article
          • Research
          • Refereed limited
        • Article Metrics

          • Downloads (Last 12 months)29
          • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)1

          Other Metrics

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader

        HTML Format

        View this article in HTML Format .

        View HTML Format