![]() | ![]() |
Formats:
|
||||||||||||||||||
Copyright © 2009 Nurujjaman et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. Comparative study of nonlinear properties of EEG signals of normal persons and epileptic patients 1Plasma Physics Division, Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics, 1/AF, Bidhannagar, Kolkata – 700064, India 2Laboratorio Associado de Plasma, Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais, Av. dos Astronautas, 1758 – Jardim da Granja 12227-010 Sao Jose dos Campos, SP, Brazil Corresponding author.Md Nurujjaman: jaman_nonlinear/at/yahoo.co.in; Ramesh Narayanan: rams/at/plasma.inpe.br; AN Sekar Iyengar: ansekar.iyengar/at/saha.ac.in Received December 4, 2008; Accepted July 20, 2009. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Abstract Background Investigation of the functioning of the brain in living systems has been a major effort amongst scientists and medical practitioners. Amongst the various disorder of the brain, epilepsy has drawn the most attention because this disorder can affect the quality of life of a person. In this paper we have reinvestigated the EEGs for normal and epileptic patients using surrogate analysis, probability distribution function and Hurst exponent. Results Using random shuffled surrogate analysis, we have obtained some of the nonlinear features that was obtained by Andrzejak et al. [Phys Rev E 2001, 64:061907], for the epileptic patients during seizure. Probability distribution function shows that the activity of an epileptic brain is nongaussian in nature. Hurst exponent has been shown to be useful to characterize a normal and an epileptic brain and it shows that the epileptic brain is long term anticorrelated whereas, the normal brain is more or less stochastic. Among all the techniques, used here, Hurst exponent is found very useful for characterization different cases. Conclusion In this article, differences in characteristics for normal subjects with eyes open and closed, epileptic subjects during seizure and seizure free intervals have been shown mainly using Hurst exponent. The H shows that the brain activity of a normal man is uncorrelated in nature whereas, epileptic brain activity shows long range anticorrelation. Background The brain is a highly complex and vital organ of a human body whose neurons interact with the local as well as the remote ones in a very complicated way [1-4]. These interactions evolve as the spatio-temporal electro magnetic field of the brain, and are recorded as Electroencephalogram (EEG) [1,4-6]. Though the detail link between EEGs and the underlying physiology is not well understood, the former is widely used for detection and prediction of epilepsy, localization of epileptic zone and characterization of the pre and post-ictal [1,6,7] using linear and nonlinear analysis techniques [1,6-11]. Though mainly nonlinear methods have been applied to predict the onset of epileptic seizure and localizing epileptic regions, limited progress has been achieved so far [11]. Even some negative results have also been reported like linear measures are better than nonlinear measures [12,13], seizure is not a low dimensional process [14], it lacks determinism [8,15,16], etc. Hence finding proper analysis techniques is also one of the main issues and experts try out different analysis tools for characterizing the normal and diseased brain states, especially the epileptic brain. In 2001, Ralph G. Andrzejak, et al. and later some other authors [17,18] have analyzed five sets of EEG signals [19] each set containing 100 epochs to study the determinism in the brain dynamics for five different physiological and pathological conditions. Sets A and B are for normal persons with eyes open and closed respectively and recorded extracranially. Sets C and D were recorded intracranially from the hippocampal formation which was nonepiletogenic of the opposite hemisphere of the brain and from within the epileptogenic zone of an epileptic patient during seizure free intervals respectively. Set E was recorded intracranially from the epileptic zone during seizure. The details of the experiments and the conditions have been described in Ref [1]. R.G. Andrzejak, et al. [1] had shown that the normal healthy subject with eyes closed and open shows stochastic behavior using amplitude adjusted Fourier transform surrogate analysis where discriminating statistics were the effective correlation dimension and nonlinear prediction error whereas, using delay vector variance discriminating statistics, significant nonlinear determinism was shown in the same subject [17]. So two conflicting results were obtained for the same subject using nonlinear methods. In the case of epileptic patients during seizure and seizure free intervals, determinism was shown using two different methods [1,17] though other studies show lack of determinism for different epileptic patients during seizure [12,15,16,20]. On the other hand, characterization of EEGs by scaling properties of the signal is also a major area of research interest [8-10,21-27]. Power spectral exponent has been used to characterize the different subjects with different physiological conditions [8,9,24,25] and the same exponent has also been used to estimate the correlation dimension (Dcorr) [8]. Fractal dimension and hurst exponent have also been used to characterize the EEGs [26,27]. Hence a number of experts prefer scaling properties to characterize EEG for different physiological and pathological conditions [8]. In this paper, we have reinvestigated the EEG data studied in Refs. [1,17,18] by random shuffled surrogate analysis using Dcorr as discriminating statistics in order to find determinism in the signal [28-30] and the results have been compared with earlier analyses [1,17]. Probability distribution function shows a difference between normal and epileptic brain states and this has been discussed in latter Section. Finally, we have quantified the five different physiological brain states by Hurst exponent (H) which has been estimated using R/S analysis [31]. Results and discussion Surrogate analysis Surrogate analysis determines the dynamics in the time series: whether it is governed by stochastic or deterministic process [28-30]. The surrogate data has been generated by Random Shuffled (RS) surrogate method, in which the signals were shuffled randomly so that the probability distribution is same but the temporal correlations are destroyed [28,29,32]. Dcorr which gives us a measure of the complexity has been estimated for both the original and the surrogate data of the data sets A, B, C, D, and E respectively. Fig 1(a)
Probability distribution functions As we have observed from the surrogate analysis that nonlinear dynamics is responsible for epileptic patients during seizure, we have compared the probability distribution function (PDF) of a normal case and an epileptic person during seizure. The PDF for sets A and E have been shown in Figs 3(a)
Hurst exponent Since one of the major emphasis of epilepsy investigation is to predict their occurrence, it is necessary to know how the data is correlated. We have carried out a study of the Hurst exponent (H) which has been estimated using Rescaled range analysis (R/S). This method was proposed by Hurst and well established by Mandelbrot, and Wallis [31]. For a given set of data series, R/S is defined as [31,34]:
Here , where , S2(n), and n are respectively the mean, variance, and time lag of the signal. The expected value of the R/S scales like cnH as n → ∞, where H is called the Hurst exponent, and can be estimated from the slope of typical plot vs lag (n). For a given signal, we divided the data into nonoverlapping blocks of equal length and R/S has been calculated using the Equation 1 and the average value of R/S has been plotted as a function of lag in a log - log plot as shown in Fig Fig44
The estimated average Hurst exponent (<H >) with an error bar of 100 epochs for all the five EEG data sets (viz. A-E) have been shown in Fig Fig5.5
Conclusion In this paper we have reinvestigated the EEG data of normal and epileptic subjects to get an insight into the brain dynamics at different imposed and diseased conditions using RS surrogate analysis, PDF and H exponents. From these analysis we have found that RS and PDF may be useful to find a broad difference between normal and epileptic subjects but not helpful for constrained and seizure free intervals. Whereas, using H exponent, we have obtained differences in characteristics for normal subjects with eyes open and closed, and epileptic subjects during seizure and seizure free interval. The H shows that the brain activity of a normal man is uncorrelated in nature whereas, epileptic brains show long range anticorrelation. Competing interests The authors declare that they have no competing interests. Authors' contributions MN and RN had carried out the time series analysis. MN, RN and ANSI prepared the manuscript. All the authors read and approved the final manuscript. Acknowledgements We gratefully acknowledge the use of TISEAN package for the estimation of the correlation dimension. References
|
PubMed related articles
Your browsing activity is empty. Activity recording is turned off. |
|||||||||||||||||
Chaos. 2001 Sep; 11(3):474-478.
[Chaos. 2001]Clin Neurophysiol. 2005 Oct; 116(10):2266-301.
[Clin Neurophysiol. 2005]Epilepsy Behav. 2008 Jan; 12(1):128-35.
[Epilepsy Behav. 2008]Clin Neurophysiol. 2005 Mar; 116(3):569-87.
[Clin Neurophysiol. 2005]J Clin Neurophysiol. 2001 May; 18(3):259-68.
[J Clin Neurophysiol. 2001]Clin Neurophysiol. 2005 Mar; 116(3):569-87.
[Clin Neurophysiol. 2005]Ann Biomed Eng. 2001; 29(7):607-18.
[Ann Biomed Eng. 2001]J Clin Neurophysiol. 2001 May; 18(3):246-58.
[J Clin Neurophysiol. 2001]Brain Topogr. 1997 Summer; 9(4):249-70.
[Brain Topogr. 1997]Neurosci Lett. 1999 Mar 19; 263(1):37-40.
[Neurosci Lett. 1999]Clin Neurophysiol. 2003 Feb; 114(2):199-209.
[Clin Neurophysiol. 2003]Biomed Eng Online. 2004 Mar 16; 3(1):7.
[Biomed Eng Online. 2004]Neurosci Lett. 1998 Jul 3; 250(2):91-4.
[Neurosci Lett. 1998]Clin Neurophysiol. 2003 Jun; 114(6):1053-68.
[Clin Neurophysiol. 2003]Chaos. 2000 Mar; 10(1):257-267.
[Chaos. 2000]Epilepsia. 1997 Aug; 38(8):853-8.
[Epilepsia. 1997]