- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine
Access Provided by Xinjiang University

Physical Review E

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Access by Xinjiang University

Nonrandomness, nonlinear dependence, and nonstationarity of electroencephalographic recordings from epilepsy patients

Ralph G. Andrzejak1, Kaspar Schindler2, and Christian Rummel3

  • 1Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Department of Information and Communication Technologies, E-08018 Barcelona, Spain
  • 2qEEG group, Department of Neurology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, CH-3010 Bern, Switzerland
  • 3Support Center for Advanced Neuroimaging, University Institute for Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, CH-3010 Bern, Switzerland

PDF

Phys. Rev. E 86, 046206 – Published 12 October, 2012

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.86.046206

Abstract

To derive tests for randomness, nonlinear-independence, and stationarity, we combine surrogates with a nonlinear prediction error, a nonlinear interdependence measure, and linear variability measures, respectively. We apply these tests to intracranial electroencephalographic recordings (EEG) from patients suffering from pharmacoresistant focal-onset epilepsy. These recordings had been performed prior to and independent from our study as part of the epilepsy diagnostics. The clinical purpose of these recordings was to delineate the brain areas to be surgically removed in each individual patient in order to achieve seizure control. This allowed us to define two distinct sets of signals: One set of signals recorded from brain areas where the first ictal EEG signal changes were detected as judged by expert visual inspection (“focal signals”) and one set of signals recorded from brain areas that were not involved at seizure onset (“nonfocal signals”). We find more rejections for both the randomness and the nonlinear-independence test for focal versus nonfocal signals. In contrast more rejections of the stationarity test are found for nonfocal signals. Furthermore, while for nonfocal signals the rejection of the stationarity test increases the rejection probability of the randomness and nonlinear-independence test substantially, we find a much weaker influence for the focal signals. In consequence, the contrast between the focal and nonfocal signals obtained from the randomness and nonlinear-independence test is further enhanced when we exclude signals for which the stationarity test is rejected. To study the dependence between the randomness and nonlinear-independence test we include only focal signals for which the stationarity test is not rejected. We show that the rejection of these two tests correlates across signals. The rejection of either test is, however, neither necessary nor sufficient for the rejection of the other test. Thus, our results suggest that EEG signals from epileptogenic brain areas are less random, more nonlinear-dependent, and more stationary compared to signals recorded from nonepileptogenic brain areas. We provide the data, source code, and detailed results in the public domain.

View figure in article

Article Text

References (47)

  1. H. Kantz and T. Schreiber, Nonlinear Time Series Analysis, 2nd ed. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2004).
  2. C. J. Stam, Clin. Neurophysiol. 116, 2266 (2005).
  3. E. Pereda, R. Quian Quiroga, and J. Bhattacharya, Prog. Neurobiol. 77, 1 (2005).
  4. K. Lehnertz, J. Biol. Phys. 34, 253 (2008).
  5. M. Casdagli, L. Iasemides, R. Savit, R. Gilmore, S. Roper, and J. Sackellares, Electroenceph. Clin. Neurophysiol. 102, 98 (1997).
  6. R. G. Andrzejak, G. Widman, K. Lehnertz, P. David, and C. E. Elger, Epilepsy Res. 44, 129 (2001).
  7. R. G. Andrzejak, F. Mormann, G. Widman, T. Kreuz, C. E. Elger, and K. Lehnertz, Epilepsy Res. 69, 30 (2006).
  8. R. G. Andrzejak, D. Chicharro, K. Lehnertz, and F. Mormann, Phys. Rev. E 83, 046203 (2011).
  9. G. Varotto, L. Tassi, S. Franceschetti, R. Spreafico, and F. Panzica, Neuroimage 61, 591 (2012).
  10. D. Kaplan and R. Cohen, Circ. Res. 67, 886 (1990).
  11. J. Pijn, J. van Neerven, A. Noest, and F. Lopes da Silva, Clin. Neurophysiol. 79, 371 (1991).
  12. J. Theiler, S. Eubank, A. Longtin, B. Galdrikian, and J. D. Farmer, Physica D 58, 77 (1992).
  13. T. Schreiber and A. Schmitz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 635 (1996).
  14. X. Luo, T. Nakamura, and M. Small, Phys. Rev. E 71, 026230 (2005).
  15. D. Prichard and J. Theiler, Phys. Rev. Lett. 73, 951 (1994).
  16. T. Schreiber and A. Schmitz, Physica D 142, 346 (2000).
  17. K. T. Dolan and A. Neiman, Phys. Rev. E 65, 026108 (2002).
  18. R. G. Andrzejak, A. Kraskov, H. Stögbauer, F. Mormann, and T. Kreuz, Phys. Rev. E 68, 066202 (2003).
  19. M. Thiel, M. Romano, J. Kurths, M. Rolfs, and R. Kliegl, Europhys. Lett. 75, 535 (2006).
  20. X. Li, D. Cui, P. Jiruska, J. Fox, X. Yao, and J. Jefferys, J. Neurophysiol. 98, 3341 (2007).
  21. M. Müller, G. Baier, C. Rummel, and K. Schindler, Europhys. Lett. 84, 10009 (2008).
  22. M. A. Kramer, U. T. Eden, S. S. Cash, and E. D. Kolaczyk, Phys. Rev. E 79, 061916 (2009).
  23. C. Rummel, M. Müller, G. Baier, F. Amor, and K. Schindler, J. Neurosci. Meth. 191, 94 (2010).
  24. C. Wilke, W. van Drongelen, M. Kohrman, and B. He, Epilepsia 51, 564 (2010).
  25. S. Bialonski, M. Wendler, and K. Lehnertz, PloS ONE 6, e22826 (2011).
  26. T. Schreiber, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 2105 (1998).
  27. C. Rummel, E. Abela, M. Müller, M. Hauf, O. Scheidegger, R. Wiest, and K. Schindler, Phys. Rev. E 83, 066215 (2011).
  28. N. Burioka, M. Miyata, G. Cornelissen, F. Halberg, T. Takeshima, D. T. Kaplan, H. Suyama, M. Endo, Y. Maegaki, T. Nomura, Y. Tomita, K. Nakashima, and E. Shimizu, Clin. EEG Neurosci. 36, 188 (2005).
  29. A. Aarabi, F. Wallois, and R. Grebe, Physica D 1188, 207 (2008).
  30. H. Jing and M. Takigawa, Biol. Cybern. 83, 391 (2000).
  31. G. Ouyang, X. Li, C. Dang, and D. A. Richards, Phys. Rev. E 79, 041146 (2009).
  32. S. Bialonski, M. Wendler, and K. Lehnertz, Epilepsy Res. 99, 78 (2012).
  33. H. G. Wieser, W. T. Blume, G. Fish, E. Goldensohn, A. Hufnagel, D. King, M. R. Sperling, and H. Lüders, Epilepsia 42, 282 (2001).
  34. C. Rummel, G. Baier, and M. Müller, J. Neurosci. Meth. 166, 138 (2007).
  35. R. G. Andrzejak, K. Lehnertz, F. Mormann, C. Rieke, P. David, and C. E. Elger, Phys. Rev. E 64, 061907 (2001).
  36. D. Chicharro and R. G. Andrzejak, Phys. Rev. E 80, 026217 (2009).
  37. J. Arnhold, K. Lehnertz, P. Grassberger, and C. E. Elger, Physica D 134, 419 (1999).
  38. A. Cenys, G. Lasiene, and K. Pyragas, Physica D 52, 332 (1991).
  39. S. J. Schiff, P. So, T. Chang, R. E. Burke, and T. Sauer, Phys. Rev. E 54, 6708 (1996).
  40. R. Quian Quiroga, A. Kraskov, T. Kreuz, and P. Grassberger, Phys. Rev. E 65, 041903 (2002).
  41. R. Quian Quiroga, J. Arnhold, and P. Grassberger, Phys. Rev. E 61, 5142 (2000).
  42. M. C. Romano, M. Thiel, J. Kurths, and C. Grebogi, Phys. Rev. E 76, 036211 (2007).
  43. J. Wang and H. Wieser, Epilepsia 35, 495 (1994).
  44. T. Dikanev, D. Smirnov, R. Wennberg, J. Perez Velazquez, and B. Bezruchko, Clin. Neurophysiol. 116, 1796 (2005).
  45. K. Schindler, H. Gast, L. Stieglitz, A. Stiebel, M. Hauf, R. Wiest, L. Mariani, and C. Rummel, Epilepsia 52, 1771 (2011).
  46. R. G. Andrzejak and T. Kreuz, Europhys. Lett. 96, 50012 (2011).
  47. All material is linked from the first author's home page: http://www.dtic.upf.edu/~ralph/. Detailed description of the organization and formats of the files are provided there.

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. E 86, 046206– Published 12 October, 2012
  • Received 3 August 2012

©2012 American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation