Home Nonlinear analysis of scalp EEGs from normal and brain tumour subjects
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

Nonlinear analysis of scalp EEGs from normal and brain tumour subjects

  • Salai Selvam V. EMAIL logo and Shenbaga Devi S.
Published/Copyright: November 30, 2020

Abstract

Measurement of features from the chaos theory or as popularly known, the concept of nonlinear dynamics, as indicatives of several pathological conditions and cognition states using the electroencephalography (EEG) signal is very popular. In this paper, the analysis of scalp EEG signals of normal subjects and brain tumour patients using the nonlinear dynamic features has been presented. The nonlinear dynamic features that represent the dimensional and waveform complexities of the signal being analyzed have been considered. The statistical analysis of the selected nonlinear dynamic features has been presented. The results show that the nonlinear dynamic features significantly discriminate the brain tumour group from the normal group.


Corresponding author: Salai Selvam V., Department of Electronics and Communication Engineering, College of Engineering, Guindy, Anna University, 29, Ramana Nagar, Perumalpattu (PO), Veppampattu (RS), Chennai, 602 024, Tamil Nadu, India, E-mail:

Acknowledgment

Authors would like to express their gratitude to the Institute of Neurology at the Madras Medical College, Chennai, India for providing the data for the research work.

  1. Research funding: None declared.

  2. Author contributions: All authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this manuscript and approved its submission.

  3. Competing interests: Authors state no conflict of interest.

References

1. GBD 2016 Brain and Other CNS Cancer Collaborators. Global, regional, and national burden of brain and other CNS cancer, 1990-2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study. Lancet Neurol 2016;18:376–93.Search in Google Scholar

2. Forbes, LJL, Warburton, F, Richards, MA, Ramirez, AJ. Risk factors for delay in symptomatic presentation: a survey of cancer patients. Br J Cancer 2014;111:581–8.10.1038/bjc.2014.304Search in Google Scholar

3. American Brain Tumor Association (ABTA). About brain tumors - a primer for patients and caregivers; 2015. Available from: https://www.abta.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/about-brain-tumors-a-primer-1.pdf.Search in Google Scholar

4. Musella, A. Brain tumor symptoms survey results; 2010–2019. Available from: http://www.virtualtrials.com/braintumorsymptomssurvey.cfm.Search in Google Scholar

5. Husing, B, Jancke, L, Tag, B. Impact assessment of neuroimaging - Final Report. Amsterdam: IOS Press; 2006.10.3218/3151-5Search in Google Scholar

6. Walter, G. The location of cerebral tumors by electroencephalography. Lancet 1936;228:305–8.10.1016/S0140-6736(01)05173-XSearch in Google Scholar

7. Hartman, AM, Lesser, RP. Brain tumors and other space-occupying lesions. In: Niedermeyer, E, Lopes Da Silva, F, editors. Electroencephalography basic principles, clinical applications, and related fields. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2011:321–74 pp.Search in Google Scholar

8. Ko, DY. EEG in brain tumors; 2018. Available from: https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1137982-overview#showall.Search in Google Scholar

9. Nagata, K, Gross, CE, Kindt, GW, Geier, MJ, Adey, GR. Topographic electroencephalographic study with power ratio index mapping in patients with malignant brain tumors. Neurosurgery 1985;17:613–9.10.1227/00006123-198510000-00014Search in Google Scholar PubMed

10. Silipo, R, Deco, G, Bartsch, H. Brain tumor classification based on EEG hidden dynamics. Intelligent Data Anal 1999;3:287–306.10.3233/IDA-1999-3404Search in Google Scholar

11. Habl, M, Bauer, Ch, Ziegaus, Ch, Lang, EW, Schulmeyer, F. Analyzing brain tumor related EEG signals with ICA algorithms. Artificial neural networks in medicine and biology. London: Springer; 2000:131–6 p.10.1007/978-1-4471-0513-8_18Search in Google Scholar

12. Karameh, FN, Dahleh, MA. Automated classification of EEG signals in brain tumor diagnostics. Proceedings of the 2000 American control conference. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE; 2000:4169–73 p.10.1109/ACC.2000.877006Search in Google Scholar

13. Chetty, S, Venayagamoorthy, GK. A neural network based detection of brain tumours using electroencephalography. Proceedings of IASTED international conference artificial intelligence and soft computing. Canada: ACTA Press; 2002:391–6 p.Search in Google Scholar

14. Boldyreva, GN, Sharova, EV, Koptelov, IuM., Shchepetkov, AN, Nikitin, KV, Kornienko, VN, et al.. Study of the genesis of pathological EEG patterns in tumor and traumatic lesions of the human brain. Hum Physiol 2005;31:18–25.10.1007/s10747-005-0003-6Search in Google Scholar

15. Murugesan, M, Sukanesh, R. Automated detection of brain tumor in EEG signals using artificial neural networks. In: Proceedings of 2009 international conference on advances in computing, control, and telecommunication technologies; 2009:284–8 pp.10.1109/ACT.2009.77Search in Google Scholar

16. Sharanreddy, M, Kulkarni, PK. Detection of primary brain tumor present in EEG signal using wavelet transform and neural network. Int J Biol Med Res 2013;4:2855–9.Search in Google Scholar

17. Stam, CJ. Nonlinear dynamical analysis of EEG and MEG: review of an emerging field. Clin Neurophysiol 2005;116:2266–301.10.1016/j.clinph.2005.06.011Search in Google Scholar PubMed

18. Rodriguez-Bermudez, G, Garcia-Laencina, PJ. Analysis of EEG signals using nonlinear dynamics and chaos: a review. Appl Math Inf Sci 2015;9:2309–21.Search in Google Scholar

19. Pritchard, WS, Duke, DW, Krieble, KK. Dimensional analysis of resting human EEG. II: surrogate-data testing indicates nonlinearity but not low-dimensional chaos. Psychophysiology 1995;32:486–91.10.1111/j.1469-8986.1995.tb02100.xSearch in Google Scholar

20. Babloyantz, A, Destexhe, A. Low-dimensional chaos in an instance of epilepsy. Proc Natl Acad Sci Neurobiol 1986;83:3513–7.10.1073/pnas.83.10.3513Search in Google Scholar

21. Jelles, B, van Birgelen, JH, Slaets, JPJ, Hekster, REM, Jonkman, EJ, Stam, CJ. Decrease of non-linear structure in the EEG of Alzheimer’s patients compared to healthy controls. Clin Neurophysiol 1999;110:1159–67.10.1016/S1388-2457(99)00013-9Search in Google Scholar

22. Heimans, JJ, Reijneveld, JC. Factors affecting the cerebral network in brain tumor patients. J Neuro Oncol 2012;108:231–7.10.1007/s11060-012-0814-7Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

23. Picot, A, Charbonnier, S, Caplier, A. Monitoring drowsiness on-line using a single encephalographic channel. In: Barros de Mello, CA, editor. Biomedical Engineering. Croatia: In-Tech; 2009:145–64 pp.10.5772/7882Search in Google Scholar

24. Cacioppo, JT, Tassinary, LG, Berntson, GG. Handbook of psychophysiology. 3rd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2007.Search in Google Scholar

25. Lofhede, J. Classification of burst and suppression in the neonatal EEG. Thesis. Gothenburg, Sweden: Chalmers University of Technology; 2007.Search in Google Scholar

26. Gudmundsson, S, Runarsson, TP, Sigurdsson, S, Eiriksdottir, G, Johnsen, K. Reliability of quantitative EEG features. Clin Neurophysiol 2007;118:2162–71.10.1016/j.clinph.2007.06.018Search in Google Scholar PubMed

27. Ruiz, RAS, Ranta, R, Louis-Dorr, V. EEG montage analysis in the Blind Source Separation framework. Biomed Signal Process Control 2011;6:77–84.10.1016/j.bspc.2010.06.007Search in Google Scholar

28. D’Alessandro, M, Esteller, R, Vachtsevanos, G, Hinson, A, Echauz, J, Litt, B. Epileptic seizure prediction using hybrid feature selection over multiple intracranial EEG electrode contacts: a report of four patients. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 2003;50:603–15.10.1109/TBME.2003.810706Search in Google Scholar

29. Esteller, R, Vachtsevanos, G, Echauz, J, Litt, B. A comparison of waveform fractal dimension algorithms. IEEE T Circuits-I 2001;48:177–83.10.1109/81.904882Search in Google Scholar

30. Sevcik, C. A procedure to estimate the fractal dimension of waveforms. Complexity Int 1998;5:1–18.Search in Google Scholar

31. Polychronaki, GE, Ktonas, PY, Gatzonis, S, Siatouni, A, Asvestas, PA, Tsekou, H, et al.. Comparison of fractal dimension estimation algorithms for epileptic seizure onset detection. J Neural Eng 2010;7:1–18.10.1109/BIBE.2008.4696822Search in Google Scholar

32. Abarbanel, HDI, Brown, R, Sidorowich, JJ, Tsimring, LS. The analysis of observed chaotic data in physical systems. Rev Modern Phys 1993;65:1331–92.10.1103/RevModPhys.65.1331Search in Google Scholar

33. Henriquez, P, Alonso, JB, Ferrer, MA, Travieso, CM, Godino-Llorente, JI, Diaz-de-Maria, F. Characterization of healthy and pathological voice through measures based on nonlinear dynamics. IEEE Transact Audio Speech Lang Process 2009;17:1186–95.10.1109/TASL.2009.2016734Search in Google Scholar

34. Henry, B, Lovell, N, Camacho, F. Nonlinear dynamics time series analysis. In: Akay, M, editor. Nonlinear biomedical signal processing volume II - dynamic analysis and modeling. New York: IEEE Press Series on Biomedical Engineering; 2001:1–39 pp.Search in Google Scholar

35. Lehnertz, K, Elger, CE. Can epileptic seizures be predicted? Evidence from nonlinear time series analysis of brain electrical activity. Phys Rev Lett 1998;80:5019–22.10.1103/PhysRevLett.80.5019Search in Google Scholar

36. Pincus, SM, Gladstone, IM, Ehrenkranz, RA. A regularity statistic for medical data analysis. J Clin Monitor 1991;7:335–45.10.1007/BF01619355Search in Google Scholar

37. Richman, JS, Moorman, JR. Physiological time-series analysis using approximate entropy and sample entropy. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol 2000;278:H2039–49.10.1152/ajpheart.2000.278.6.H2039Search in Google Scholar

38. Bandt, C, Pompe, B. Permutation entropy: a natural complexity measure for time series. Phys Rev Lett 2002;88:1–4.10.1103/PhysRevLett.88.174102Search in Google Scholar

39. Chon, KH, Scully, CG, Lu, S. Approximate entropy for all signals. IEEE Eng Med Biol Mag 2009;28:18–23.10.1109/MEMB.2009.934629Search in Google Scholar

40. Riedl, M, Muller, A, Wessel, N. Practical considerations of permutation entropy: a tutorial review. Eur Phys J Spec Top 2013;222:249–62.10.1140/epjst/e2013-01862-7Search in Google Scholar

41. Breakspear, M, Terry, JR. Detection and description of non-linear interdependence in normal multichannel human EEG data. Clin Neurophysiol 2002;113:735–53.10.1016/S1388-2457(02)00051-2Search in Google Scholar

42. Pereda, E, Cruz, DM, Manas, S, Garrido, JM, Lopez, S, Gonzalez, JJ. Topography of EEG complexity in human neonates: effect of the postmenstrual age and the sleep state. Neurosci Lett 2006;394:152–7.10.1016/j.neulet.2005.10.036Search in Google Scholar PubMed

43. Jeong, J, Gore, JC, Peterson, BS. A method for determinism in short time series, and its application to stationary EEG. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 2002;49:1374–9.10.1109/TBME.2002.804581Search in Google Scholar PubMed

44. Montgomery, DC, Runger, GC. Applied statistics and probability for Engineers. 3rd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 2003.Search in Google Scholar

45. Krakovska, A, Stolc, S. Fractal complexity of EEG signal. Measurement Sci Rev 2006;6:63–6.Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2020-02-03
Accepted: 2020-09-28
Published Online: 2020-11-30
Published in Print: 2021-04-27

© 2020 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Downloaded on 10.9.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/bmt-2020-0035/html
Scroll to top button