Cargando…

A Comparison of Energy-Efficient Seizure Detectors for Implantable Neurostimulation Devices

INTRODUCTION: About 30% of epilepsy patients are resistant to treatment with antiepileptic drugs, and only a minority of these are surgical candidates. A recent therapeutic approach is the application of electrical stimulation in the early phases of a seizure to interrupt its spread across the brain...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Manzouri, Farrokh, Zöllin, Marc, Schillinger, Simon, Dümpelmann, Matthias, Mikut, Ralf, Woias, Peter, Comella, Laura Maria, Schulze-Bonhage, Andreas
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8934428/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35317247
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2021.703797
_version_ 1784671847149731840
author Manzouri, Farrokh
Zöllin, Marc
Schillinger, Simon
Dümpelmann, Matthias
Mikut, Ralf
Woias, Peter
Comella, Laura Maria
Schulze-Bonhage, Andreas
author_facet Manzouri, Farrokh
Zöllin, Marc
Schillinger, Simon
Dümpelmann, Matthias
Mikut, Ralf
Woias, Peter
Comella, Laura Maria
Schulze-Bonhage, Andreas
author_sort Manzouri, Farrokh
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: About 30% of epilepsy patients are resistant to treatment with antiepileptic drugs, and only a minority of these are surgical candidates. A recent therapeutic approach is the application of electrical stimulation in the early phases of a seizure to interrupt its spread across the brain. To accomplish this, energy-efficient seizure detectors are required that are able to detect a seizure in its early stages. METHODS: Three patient-specific, energy-efficient seizure detectors are proposed in this study: (i) random forest (RF); (ii) long short-term memory (LSTM) recurrent neural network (RNN); and (iii) convolutional neural network (CNN). Performance evaluation was based on EEG data (n = 40 patients) derived from a selected set of surface EEG electrodes, which mimic the electrode layout of an implantable neurostimulation system. As for the RF input, 16 features in the time- and frequency-domains were selected. Raw EEG data were used for both CNN and RNN. Energy consumption was estimated by a platform-independent model based on the number of arithmetic operations (AOs) and memory accesses (MAs). To validate the estimated energy consumption, the RNN classifier was implemented on an ultra-low-power microcontroller. RESULTS: The RNN seizure detector achieved a slightly better level of performance, with a median area under the precision-recall curve score of 0.49, compared to 0.47 for CNN and 0.46 for RF. In terms of energy consumption, RF was the most efficient algorithm, with a total of 67k AOs and 67k MAs per classification. This was followed by CNN (488k AOs and 963k MAs) and RNN (772k AOs and 978k MAs), whereby MAs contributed more to total energy consumption. Measurements derived from the hardware implementation of the RNN algorithm demonstrated a significant correlation between estimations and actual measurements. DISCUSSION: All three proposed seizure detection algorithms were shown to be suitable for application in implantable devices. The applied methodology for a platform-independent energy estimation was proven to be accurate by way of hardware implementation of the RNN algorithm. These findings show that seizure detection can be achieved using just a few channels with limited spatial distribution. The methodology proposed in this study can therefore be applied when designing new models for responsive neurostimulation.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8934428
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-89344282022-03-21 A Comparison of Energy-Efficient Seizure Detectors for Implantable Neurostimulation Devices Manzouri, Farrokh Zöllin, Marc Schillinger, Simon Dümpelmann, Matthias Mikut, Ralf Woias, Peter Comella, Laura Maria Schulze-Bonhage, Andreas Front Neurol Neurology INTRODUCTION: About 30% of epilepsy patients are resistant to treatment with antiepileptic drugs, and only a minority of these are surgical candidates. A recent therapeutic approach is the application of electrical stimulation in the early phases of a seizure to interrupt its spread across the brain. To accomplish this, energy-efficient seizure detectors are required that are able to detect a seizure in its early stages. METHODS: Three patient-specific, energy-efficient seizure detectors are proposed in this study: (i) random forest (RF); (ii) long short-term memory (LSTM) recurrent neural network (RNN); and (iii) convolutional neural network (CNN). Performance evaluation was based on EEG data (n = 40 patients) derived from a selected set of surface EEG electrodes, which mimic the electrode layout of an implantable neurostimulation system. As for the RF input, 16 features in the time- and frequency-domains were selected. Raw EEG data were used for both CNN and RNN. Energy consumption was estimated by a platform-independent model based on the number of arithmetic operations (AOs) and memory accesses (MAs). To validate the estimated energy consumption, the RNN classifier was implemented on an ultra-low-power microcontroller. RESULTS: The RNN seizure detector achieved a slightly better level of performance, with a median area under the precision-recall curve score of 0.49, compared to 0.47 for CNN and 0.46 for RF. In terms of energy consumption, RF was the most efficient algorithm, with a total of 67k AOs and 67k MAs per classification. This was followed by CNN (488k AOs and 963k MAs) and RNN (772k AOs and 978k MAs), whereby MAs contributed more to total energy consumption. Measurements derived from the hardware implementation of the RNN algorithm demonstrated a significant correlation between estimations and actual measurements. DISCUSSION: All three proposed seizure detection algorithms were shown to be suitable for application in implantable devices. The applied methodology for a platform-independent energy estimation was proven to be accurate by way of hardware implementation of the RNN algorithm. These findings show that seizure detection can be achieved using just a few channels with limited spatial distribution. The methodology proposed in this study can therefore be applied when designing new models for responsive neurostimulation. Frontiers Media S.A. 2022-03-04 /pmc/articles/PMC8934428/ /pubmed/35317247 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2021.703797 Text en Copyright © 2022 Manzouri, Zöllin, Schillinger, Dümpelmann, Mikut, Woias, Comella and Schulze-Bonhage. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Neurology
Manzouri, Farrokh
Zöllin, Marc
Schillinger, Simon
Dümpelmann, Matthias
Mikut, Ralf
Woias, Peter
Comella, Laura Maria
Schulze-Bonhage, Andreas
A Comparison of Energy-Efficient Seizure Detectors for Implantable Neurostimulation Devices
title A Comparison of Energy-Efficient Seizure Detectors for Implantable Neurostimulation Devices
title_full A Comparison of Energy-Efficient Seizure Detectors for Implantable Neurostimulation Devices
title_fullStr A Comparison of Energy-Efficient Seizure Detectors for Implantable Neurostimulation Devices
title_full_unstemmed A Comparison of Energy-Efficient Seizure Detectors for Implantable Neurostimulation Devices
title_short A Comparison of Energy-Efficient Seizure Detectors for Implantable Neurostimulation Devices
title_sort comparison of energy-efficient seizure detectors for implantable neurostimulation devices
topic Neurology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8934428/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35317247
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2021.703797
work_keys_str_mv AT manzourifarrokh acomparisonofenergyefficientseizuredetectorsforimplantableneurostimulationdevices
AT zollinmarc acomparisonofenergyefficientseizuredetectorsforimplantableneurostimulationdevices
AT schillingersimon acomparisonofenergyefficientseizuredetectorsforimplantableneurostimulationdevices
AT dumpelmannmatthias acomparisonofenergyefficientseizuredetectorsforimplantableneurostimulationdevices
AT mikutralf acomparisonofenergyefficientseizuredetectorsforimplantableneurostimulationdevices
AT woiaspeter acomparisonofenergyefficientseizuredetectorsforimplantableneurostimulationdevices
AT comellalauramaria acomparisonofenergyefficientseizuredetectorsforimplantableneurostimulationdevices
AT schulzebonhageandreas acomparisonofenergyefficientseizuredetectorsforimplantableneurostimulationdevices
AT manzourifarrokh comparisonofenergyefficientseizuredetectorsforimplantableneurostimulationdevices
AT zollinmarc comparisonofenergyefficientseizuredetectorsforimplantableneurostimulationdevices
AT schillingersimon comparisonofenergyefficientseizuredetectorsforimplantableneurostimulationdevices
AT dumpelmannmatthias comparisonofenergyefficientseizuredetectorsforimplantableneurostimulationdevices
AT mikutralf comparisonofenergyefficientseizuredetectorsforimplantableneurostimulationdevices
AT woiaspeter comparisonofenergyefficientseizuredetectorsforimplantableneurostimulationdevices
AT comellalauramaria comparisonofenergyefficientseizuredetectorsforimplantableneurostimulationdevices
AT schulzebonhageandreas comparisonofenergyefficientseizuredetectorsforimplantableneurostimulationdevices