Publication details
Stereo-electroencephalography (SEEG) reference based on low-variance signals
| Authors | |
|---|---|
| Year of publication | 2020 |
| Type | Article in Proceedings |
| Conference | 42ND ANNUAL INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCES OF THE IEEE ENGINEERING IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY SOCIETY: ENABLING INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR GLOBAL HEALTHCARE EMBC'20 |
| MU Faculty or unit | |
| Citation | |
| Web | https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/9175734 |
| Doi | http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/EMBC44109.2020.9175734 |
| Keywords | Stereo-electroencephalography; low-variance signals |
| Description | For a correct assessment of stereo-electroencephalographic (SEEG) recordings, a proper signal electrical reference is necessary. Such a reference might be physical or virtual. Physical reference can be noisy and a proper virtual reference calculation is often time-consuming. This paper uses the variance of the SEEG signals to calculate the reference from relatively low noise signals to reduce the contamination by distant sources, while maintaining negligible computing time. Ten patients with SEEG recordings were used in this study. 20-second long recordings from each patient, sampled at 5000 Hz, were used to calculate variances of SEEG signals and a low-variance (LV) subset of signals was selected for each patient. Consequently, 4 different reference signals were calculated using: 1) an average signal from WM contacts only (AVG WM); 2) an average signal from LV contacts only (AVG LV); 3) independent component analysis (ICA) method from WM contacts only (ICA WM); and 4) ICA method from LV signals only (ICA LV). Also, the original testing reference, an average signal from all SEEG contacts (AVG) was utilized. Finally, bipolar signals and average signals from anatomical structures were calculated and used to evaluate reference signals. 91.7% of the WM SEEG contacts were found below the average variance. ICA LV showed the best and AVG WM the worst overall results. AVG LV had the most positive impact on minimizing the mutual correlations between separate brain structures and correcting the outliers. The average processing time for ICA methods was 66.72 seconds and 0.7870 seconds for AVG methods (100 000 samples, 125.7 +/- 20.4 SEEG signals). Utilizing the LV data subset improves the reference signal. WM references are difficult to obtain and seem to be more susceptible to errors caused by low number of WM contacts in the dataset. ICA LV can be considered as one of the best reference estimations, however the calculation is very demanding and time consuming. AVG LV shows good and stable results, while it is based on a straightforward methodology and outstandingly fast calculation. |