Cargando…

A Robustness Comparison of Two Algorithms Used for EEG Spike Detection

Spikes and sharp waves recorded on scalp EEG may play an important role in identifying the epileptogenic network as well as in understanding the central nervous system. Therefore, several automatic and semi-automatic methods have been implemented to detect these two neural transients. A consistent g...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Chaibi, Sahbi, Lajnef, Tarek, Ghrob, Abdelbacet, Samet, Mounir, Kachouri, Abdennaceur
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Bentham Open 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4541300/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26312076
http://dx.doi.org/10.2174/1874120701509010151
_version_ 1782386370860285952
author Chaibi, Sahbi
Lajnef, Tarek
Ghrob, Abdelbacet
Samet, Mounir
Kachouri, Abdennaceur
author_facet Chaibi, Sahbi
Lajnef, Tarek
Ghrob, Abdelbacet
Samet, Mounir
Kachouri, Abdennaceur
author_sort Chaibi, Sahbi
collection PubMed
description Spikes and sharp waves recorded on scalp EEG may play an important role in identifying the epileptogenic network as well as in understanding the central nervous system. Therefore, several automatic and semi-automatic methods have been implemented to detect these two neural transients. A consistent gold standard associated with a high degree of agreement among neuroscientists is required to measure relevant performance of different methods. In fact, scalp EEG data can often be corrupted by a set of artifacts and are not always served as data of gold standard. For this reason, the use of intracerebral EEG data mixed with gaussian noise seems to best resemble the output of scalp EEG brain and serves as a consistent gold standard. In the present framework, we test the robustness of two important methods that have been previously used for the automatic detection of epileptiform transients (spikes and sharp waves). These methods are based respectively on Discrete Wavelet Transform (DWT) and Continuous Wavelet Transform (CWT). Our purpose is to elaborate a comparative study in terms of sensitivity and selectivity changes via the decrease of Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR), which is ranged from 10 dB up to -10 dB. The results demonstrate that, DWT approach turns to be more stable in terms of sensitivity, and it successfully follows the detection of relevant spikes with the decrease of SNR. However, CWT-based approach remains more stable in terms of selectivity, so that, it performs well in terms of rejecting false spikes compared to DWT approach.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4541300
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher Bentham Open
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-45413002015-08-26 A Robustness Comparison of Two Algorithms Used for EEG Spike Detection Chaibi, Sahbi Lajnef, Tarek Ghrob, Abdelbacet Samet, Mounir Kachouri, Abdennaceur Open Biomed Eng J Article Spikes and sharp waves recorded on scalp EEG may play an important role in identifying the epileptogenic network as well as in understanding the central nervous system. Therefore, several automatic and semi-automatic methods have been implemented to detect these two neural transients. A consistent gold standard associated with a high degree of agreement among neuroscientists is required to measure relevant performance of different methods. In fact, scalp EEG data can often be corrupted by a set of artifacts and are not always served as data of gold standard. For this reason, the use of intracerebral EEG data mixed with gaussian noise seems to best resemble the output of scalp EEG brain and serves as a consistent gold standard. In the present framework, we test the robustness of two important methods that have been previously used for the automatic detection of epileptiform transients (spikes and sharp waves). These methods are based respectively on Discrete Wavelet Transform (DWT) and Continuous Wavelet Transform (CWT). Our purpose is to elaborate a comparative study in terms of sensitivity and selectivity changes via the decrease of Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR), which is ranged from 10 dB up to -10 dB. The results demonstrate that, DWT approach turns to be more stable in terms of sensitivity, and it successfully follows the detection of relevant spikes with the decrease of SNR. However, CWT-based approach remains more stable in terms of selectivity, so that, it performs well in terms of rejecting false spikes compared to DWT approach. Bentham Open 2015-07-23 /pmc/articles/PMC4541300/ /pubmed/26312076 http://dx.doi.org/10.2174/1874120701509010151 Text en © Chaibi et al.; Licensee Bentham Open. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ This is an open access article licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted, non-commercial use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Article
Chaibi, Sahbi
Lajnef, Tarek
Ghrob, Abdelbacet
Samet, Mounir
Kachouri, Abdennaceur
A Robustness Comparison of Two Algorithms Used for EEG Spike Detection
title A Robustness Comparison of Two Algorithms Used for EEG Spike Detection
title_full A Robustness Comparison of Two Algorithms Used for EEG Spike Detection
title_fullStr A Robustness Comparison of Two Algorithms Used for EEG Spike Detection
title_full_unstemmed A Robustness Comparison of Two Algorithms Used for EEG Spike Detection
title_short A Robustness Comparison of Two Algorithms Used for EEG Spike Detection
title_sort robustness comparison of two algorithms used for eeg spike detection
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4541300/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26312076
http://dx.doi.org/10.2174/1874120701509010151
work_keys_str_mv AT chaibisahbi arobustnesscomparisonoftwoalgorithmsusedforeegspikedetection
AT lajneftarek arobustnesscomparisonoftwoalgorithmsusedforeegspikedetection
AT ghrobabdelbacet arobustnesscomparisonoftwoalgorithmsusedforeegspikedetection
AT sametmounir arobustnesscomparisonoftwoalgorithmsusedforeegspikedetection
AT kachouriabdennaceur arobustnesscomparisonoftwoalgorithmsusedforeegspikedetection
AT chaibisahbi robustnesscomparisonoftwoalgorithmsusedforeegspikedetection
AT lajneftarek robustnesscomparisonoftwoalgorithmsusedforeegspikedetection
AT ghrobabdelbacet robustnesscomparisonoftwoalgorithmsusedforeegspikedetection
AT sametmounir robustnesscomparisonoftwoalgorithmsusedforeegspikedetection
AT kachouriabdennaceur robustnesscomparisonoftwoalgorithmsusedforeegspikedetection