TY - JOUR
T1 - AR2, a novel automatic muscle artifact reduction software method for ictal EEG interpretation
T2 - Validation and comparison of performance with commercially available software
AU - Weiss, Shennan Aibel
AU - Asadi-Pooya, Ali A.
AU - Vangala, Sitaram
AU - Moy, Stephanie
AU - Wyeth, Dale H.
AU - Orosz, Iren
AU - Gibbs, Michael
AU - Schrader, Lara
AU - Lerner, Jason
AU - Cheng, Christopher K.
AU - Chang, Edward
AU - Rajaraman, Rajsekar
AU - Keselman, Inna
AU - Churchman, Perdro
AU - Bower-Baca, Christine
AU - Numis, Adam L.
AU - Ho, Michael G.
AU - Rao, Lekha
AU - Bhat, Annapoorna
AU - Suski, Joanna
AU - Asadollahi, Marjan
AU - Ambrose, Timothy
AU - Fernandez, Andres
AU - Nei, Maromi
AU - Skidmore, Christopher
AU - Mintzer, Scott
AU - Eliashiv, Dawn S.
AU - Mathern, Gary W.
AU - Nuwer, Marc R.
AU - Sperling, Michael
AU - Engel, Jerome
AU - Stern, John M.
N1 - Publisher Copyright: © 2017 Weiss SA et al.
PY - 2017
Y1 - 2017
N2 - Objective: To develop a novel software method (AR2) for reducing muscle contamination of ictal scalp electroencephalogram (EEG), and validate this method on the basis of its performance in comparison to a commercially available software method (AR1) to accurately depict seizure-onset location. Methods: A blinded investigation used 23 EEG recordings of seizures from 8 patients. Each recording was uninterpretable with digital filtering because of muscle artifact and processed using AR1 and AR2 and reviewed by 26 EEG specialists. EEG readers assessed seizure-onset time, lateralization, and region, and specified confidence for each determination. The two methods were validated on the basis of the number of readers able to render assignments, confidence, the intra-class correlation (ICC), and agreement with other clinical findings. Results: Among the 23 seizures, two-thirds of the readers were able to delineate seizure-onset time in 10 of 23 using AR1, and 15 of 23 using AR2 (p<0.01). Fewer readers could lateralize seizure-onset (p<0.05). The confidence measures of the assignments were low (probable-unlikely), but increased using AR2 (p<0.05). The ICC for identifying the time of seizure-onset was 0.15 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.11-0.18) using AR1 and 0.26 (95% CI 0.21-0.30) using AR2. The EEG interpretations were often consistent with behavioral, neurophysiological, and neuro-radiological findings, with left sided assignments correct in 95.9% (CI 85.7-98.9%, n=4) of cases using AR2, and 91.9% (77.0-97.5%) (n=4) of cases using AR1. Conclusions: EEG artifact reduction methods for localizing seizure-onset does not result in high rates of interpretability, reader confidence, and inter-reader agreement. However, the assignments by groups of readers are often congruent with other clinical data. Utilization of the AR2 software method may improve the validity of ictal EEG artifact reduction.
AB - Objective: To develop a novel software method (AR2) for reducing muscle contamination of ictal scalp electroencephalogram (EEG), and validate this method on the basis of its performance in comparison to a commercially available software method (AR1) to accurately depict seizure-onset location. Methods: A blinded investigation used 23 EEG recordings of seizures from 8 patients. Each recording was uninterpretable with digital filtering because of muscle artifact and processed using AR1 and AR2 and reviewed by 26 EEG specialists. EEG readers assessed seizure-onset time, lateralization, and region, and specified confidence for each determination. The two methods were validated on the basis of the number of readers able to render assignments, confidence, the intra-class correlation (ICC), and agreement with other clinical findings. Results: Among the 23 seizures, two-thirds of the readers were able to delineate seizure-onset time in 10 of 23 using AR1, and 15 of 23 using AR2 (p<0.01). Fewer readers could lateralize seizure-onset (p<0.05). The confidence measures of the assignments were low (probable-unlikely), but increased using AR2 (p<0.05). The ICC for identifying the time of seizure-onset was 0.15 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.11-0.18) using AR1 and 0.26 (95% CI 0.21-0.30) using AR2. The EEG interpretations were often consistent with behavioral, neurophysiological, and neuro-radiological findings, with left sided assignments correct in 95.9% (CI 85.7-98.9%, n=4) of cases using AR2, and 91.9% (77.0-97.5%) (n=4) of cases using AR1. Conclusions: EEG artifact reduction methods for localizing seizure-onset does not result in high rates of interpretability, reader confidence, and inter-reader agreement. However, the assignments by groups of readers are often congruent with other clinical data. Utilization of the AR2 software method may improve the validity of ictal EEG artifact reduction.
KW - Electroencephalogram
KW - Independent component analysis
KW - Muscle artifact
KW - Scalp EEG
KW - Seizure
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85018268963
U2 - 10.12688/f1000research.10569.2
DO - 10.12688/f1000research.10569.2
M3 - Article
SN - 2046-1402
VL - 6
JO - F1000Research
JF - F1000Research
M1 - 30
ER -