This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been
fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TNSRE.2018.2818123, IEEE
Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering
A Novel Signal Modeling Approach for
Classification of Seizure and Seizure-free EEG
Signals
Anubha Gupta, Senior Member, IEEE, Pushpendra Singh, Member, IEEE, Mandar Karlekar
Abstract—This paper presents a signal modeling based new
methodology of automatic seizure detection in EEG signals. The
proposed method consists of three stages. First, a multirate
filterbank structure is proposed that is constructed using the
basis vectors of discrete cosine transform (DCT). The proposed
filterbank decomposes EEG signals into its respective brain
rhythms: delta, theta, alpha, beta, and gamma. Second, these
brain rhythms are statistically modeled with the class of self-
similar Gaussian random processes, namely, fractional Brownian
motion (fBm) and fractional Gaussian noises (fGn). The statistics
of these processes are modeled using a single parameter called
the Hurst exponent. In the last stage, the value of Hurst exponent
and autoregressive moving average (ARMA) parameters are used
as features to design a binary SVM classifier to classify pre-ictal,
inter-ictal (epileptic with seizure free interval), and ictal (seizure)
EEG segments. The performance of the classifier is assessed via
extensive analysis on two widely used dataset and is observed
to provide good accuracy on both the dataset. Thus, this paper
proposes a novel signal model for EEG data that best captures
the attributes of these signals and hence, allows to boost the
classification accuracy of seizure and seizure-free epochs.
Index Terms—Fractional Gaussian noise, epileptic EEG data,
DCT, Seizure Detection
I. I NTRODUCTION
A seizure is an event that causes an abrupt surge of electrical
activity in the brain, where epilepsy is the disease involv-
ing recurrent unprovoked seizures. Worldwide, approximately
50 million people are affected by epilepsy [1] and this is
one of the most common neurological diseases. Electroen-
cephalograph (EEG) is a recording of the electrical activity
of the brain generated by cortical neurons. It is, typically,
a noninvasive diagnostic method for the determination and
treatment of epileptic seizures [2]. An EEG signal is band-
limited in frequency (0.1–60 Hz), modeled and classified into
five rhythmic waves, namely, delta (0.1–4 Hz), theta (4–8 Hz),
alpha (8–12 Hz), beta (12–30 Hz), and gamma (30–60 Hz)
waves that capture different brain activities [3]. The recording
and analysis of EEG signal is useful in diagnosing epileptic
seizures [2], [4]–[6], EEG signal classification [7] for the
reliable operation of brain-computer interfaces, detection and
monitoring of brain injury [8], classification of sleep stages [9],
[10], detection of abnormal brain states [11], and detection of
Anubha Gupta is with the Deptt. of ECE, IIIT-Delhi, India. email:
anubha@iiitd.ac.in. Lab: http://sbilab.iiitd.edu.in/
Pushpendra Singh is with Bennett University, Noida, U.P., India. email:
spushp@gmail.com.
Mandar Karlekar was with the Georgia Tech. University, USA at the time of
completion of this work. email: mandarkarlekar03@gmail.com
1534-4320 (c) 2018 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
changes in mental state [12]. The alpha wave, for example, is
observed to be reduced in children, elderly [13], and in patients
with dementia, schizophrenia, stroke, and epilepsy [14].
A visual inspection and analysis of EEG signals is an
empirical science. It requires a large amount of time and neu-
rological knowledge [15] that makes the process of epilepsy
detection tedious and subjective [16] and may lead to incorrect
diagnosis. In order to eliminate these limitations, a computer
based fully- or semi-automated analysis of EEG signals is
required. These computer assisted methods extract features
from EEG signals in order to classify them as inter-ictal
(seizure-free interval of an epileptic patient) or ictal (seizure),
respectively.
Fourier transform (FT) based spectral features are frequently
used for the classification of EEG signals. However, direct
application of FT may not provide correct spectral information
of EEG signals because 1) one may analyze each separate
segment of EEG with FT assuming that to be a deterministic
signal, while EEG signals form a random process; 2) FT is not
suited for the analysis of short data segments; and 3) short-
time FT leads to side-lobe leakage effects due to windowing
[17]. FT can be used to compute the power spectral density of
EEG assuming it to be a stationary random process, but EEG
is a non-stationary random process [18]. Thus, FT should be
used carefully for the analysis of EEG signals.
Several FT based spectral methods are developed to process
EEG signals. For example, [19] uses the autoregressive model
for EEG signals but it is unsuitable for non-stationary signals
in addition to the need for finding the correct order of the
system [20]. In [21], Welch method is used to estimate the
periodogram for the analysis and classification of EEG signals.
However, periodogram is a biased estimator of frequency
spectrum [20].
A number of methods have been developed for the classi-
fication of epileptic data [22]–[33]. In [34], wavelet packet is
used to detect epileptic seizure. Modular energy and modular
entropy are used as features in [35] for the classification of
EEG signals. In [36], feature-waves are extracted using non-
linear distribution methods. In [37], approximate entropy and
sample entropy have been used to identify epileptic signals.
However, the method is heavily dependent on the record length
and the results are greatly affected by system noise [38]. The
largest Lypunov exponent and correlation dimension provide
useful clinical information in order to segregate seizure data
from the healthy [39]. However, it is observed that lower
sampling rates and variable length data segments tend to distort
the estimation of correlation dimension [40].
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TNSRE.2018.2818123, IEEE
Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering
Empirical mode decomposition (EMD) is a recent technique
which has caught the eye of researchers in nonlinear signal
analysis. The mean frequency obtained from the intrinsic mode
functions (IMFs) provides considerable distinction between the
inter-ictal and ictal groups. In [41], higher order statistics are
calculated for different IMFs to distinguish between healthy
and epileptic subjects. Amplitude modulation bandwidth and
frequency modulation bandwidth of IMFs are used as features
for classification of EEG signals in [42]. However, EMD is
computationally expensive. Also, the number of IMFs differs
for every set of data.
This paper presents a novel signal-modeling based classifier
for seizure detection in EEG signals. The contributions of this
paper are as follows:
1) A new 3-level multirate filterbank structure is proposed
that is based on discrete cosine transform (DCT) basis
vectors for the extraction of delta, theta, alpha, beta, and
gamma brain rhythms;
2) A new statistical modeling of brain rhythms is proposed
via a class of self-similar random processes, namely,
fractional Brownian motion (fBm) and fractional Gaus-
sian noise (fGn). Delta brain waves are seen to belong to
1st order fBm processes. Rest of the brain waves, i.e.,
theta, alpha, gamma, and beta are modeled as higher
order fGn processes. Further, this is to note that fBm
are non-stationary random processes, while fGn are the
stationary random processes. Thus, delta brain waves
exhibit non-stationarity, while the rest of the brain waves
are stationary random processes;
3) Autoregressive moving average (ARMA) parameters
along with H values have been used as features to design
a 10-fold Support Vector Machine (SVM) based classi-
fier that classifies EEG segments into pre-ictal, inter-ictal
(seizure free interval), and ictal (seizure) signals.
4) Classification accuracy has been tested on two widely
used dataset to establish the robustness of the proposed
methodology irrespective of the dataset.
To the best of our knowledge, this is the first work that
presents such a higher order fractional Gaussian noise based
signal-modeling approach for EEG signal classification. Al-
though attempts have been made previously on modeling of
EEG signals via fBm [43], the modeling has been restricted to
1st -order modeling. This study has extended this modeling to
the rhythms of EEG signals and it is shown that delta rhythms
belong to 1st -order fBm processes; theta, alpha, and gamma
rhythms belong to 1st -order fGn, while beta rhythms belong
to 2nd -order fGn.
While classification between ictal-free and ictal dataset
has been studied by many authors [44]–[48], this study has
considered all possible cases of pre-ictal, inter-ictal, and ictal,
where inter-ictal and ictal classification is more important
because it may predict the coming ictal activity.
This paper is organized into five sections. The ‘Materials’
Section describes dataset used. The ‘Methods’ Section presents
modeling of EEG signals as fBm and fGn processes, feature
identification, and design of classifier. Results are presented
in ‘Results’ section, while these are discussed along with the
1534-4320 (c) 2018 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
limitations of the method in the ‘Discussion and Limitations’
Section. Some conclusions are presented in the last Section.
II. M ATERIALS
A. Description of Dataset-1
This study uses EEG database which was recorded at the
University of Bonn, Germany for detailed study of electrical
activity of the brain [54]. The complete database consists of
five sets (A–E) of EEG signals and each set contains 100
EEG segments of 23.6 seconds duration each [54]. SET A and
B consist of data collected from five healthy volunteers with
relaxed open and closed eyes, respectively, using international
10–20 system scalp surface electrodes placement scheme. The
other three sets C, D and E are obtained from five epileptic
patients undergoing pre-surgical evaluations using intracranial
EEG recordings. The dataset C and D have been measured
in inter-ictal periods (seizure-free intervals) from five patients
in the epileptogenic zone (D) and from the hippocampal
formation of the opposite hemisphere of the brain (C). SET
E consists of data recorded during a ictal (seizure) event.
Each of these sets has 100 single-channel EEG recordings
with the sampling rate of 173.6 Hz, obtained from a 12-bit
A/D converter, resulting in 86.8 Hz bandwidth. The duration
of EEG duration, of each channel in all five sets, is of
23.6 seconds and leads to 4097 non-overlapping samples in
each channel. More information about the dataset is available
in [54].
B. Description of Dataset-2
In order to test the robustness of the proposed classifier, it
has been tested on one more dataset collected from another
source. This second dataset consists of segmented EEG time
series recordings collected at Neurology and Sleep Centre,
Hauz Khas, New Delhi from ten epilepsy patients. The dataset
was acquired using Grass Telefactor Comet AS40 amplifica-
tion system at a sampling rate of 200 Hz with gold plated scalp
EEG electrodes placed according to 10-20 electrode placement
system. Signals were passed through band-pass filter (0.5 Hz
to 70 Hz) and then segmented into pre-ictal, interictal, and
ictal stages by a team of experts. There are three folders that
are named according to the epileptic seizure stages and each
folder contains fifty MAT-files of EEG time series. Each MAT-
file consists of non-overlapping 1024 samples of one EEG time
series data that corresponds to 5.12 seconds of time duration.
In this paper, the pre-ictal data is labeled as SET X, inter-
ictal data as SET Y, and ictal data as Z, where all these data
are originating from the same person. This dataset is publicly
available for download [55] and many studies related to seizure
diagnosis, detection and classification [56]–[59] have been
performed by the authors of this dataset. More details on this
data can be referred from these papers [56]–[59].
This study considers all possible cases of classification
between pre-ictal, inter-ictal, and ictal EEG segments for both
the above dataset.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TNSRE.2018.2818123, IEEE
Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering
III. M ETHODS
First, EEG signals and corresponding brain rhythms are
modeled statistically as fBm and fGn processes. Next, sta-
tistically significant features are identified and collected based
on the above modeling to build the classifier.
A. Statistical Modeling of EEG Signals
It is known that EEG signals are random processes [18] [60]
that are non-stationary [18]. In general, EEG signals consist of
an intrinsic stimuli related response, also called as an ongoing
brain activity, and an extrinsic stimuli related response. The
intrinsic stimuli related response has been known to be a
zero mean signal [61]. Since an EEG signal is a cumulative
response of millions of neurons in the brain, these signals
may be considered as Gaussian random processes by applying
Central Limit theorem (CLT). Thus, in the absence of any
extrinsic stimuli, EEG signals can be assumed to be zero-mean
Gaussian non-stationary random processes.
Fractional Brownian motion comprise an important class
of self-similar random processes that are zero-mean Gaussian
non-stationary processes with self-similarity index H and with
stationary increments (shown mathematically in (6)). The
parameter H is called the self-similarity index or the Hurst
exponent and helps in writing explicit expressions of the
statistics of these random processes.
Depending on the value of H, the order of an fBm process
is specified. For example, an fBm process with H ∈ (0, 1) is
called as 1st -order fBm [17], with H ∈ (1, 2) is called as 2nd -
order fBm, and with H ∈ (m − 1, m) is called as mth -order
fBm process [50], [51]. A discrete-time fractional Brownian
motion (dfBm) is defined by considering uniformly sampled
continuous-time fBm process [50].
Another important subclass of self-similar processes are
the stationary Gaussian random processes called as fGn that
are formed by computing the normalized increment of fBm
processes [50]. For example, Wiener process is a fractional
Brownian motion with H = 1/2 and its normalized increment
provides a zero-mean stationary white Gaussian noise, i.e., an
fGn noise. Correspondingly, for a discrete-time fBm process,
discrete-time fGn is computed by considering the difference
of dfBm. For example, a 1st -order dfGn (1-dfGn) process is
defined as the 1st -order difference of dfBm [50] and 2nd -order
difference of a dfBm process provides the dfGn (2-dfGn).
In order to distinguish dfBm, 1-dfGn, and 2-dfGn based on
the value of Hurst exponent H, following ranges of H have
been considered: 0<H<1 for dfBm, -1<H<0 for 1-dfGn, and
-2<H<-1 for 2-dfGn, i.e., it is assumed that the spectrum
of all these random processes is proportional to 1/|f |2H+1 ,
irrespective of whether they are dfBm or dfGn processes of
any order.
In [53], Lundahl et al. [53] used maximum likelihood
(ML) method for the estimation of Hurst exponent of 1-
dfBm process. Since ML can be applied on stationary random
processes and 1-dfGn is a stationary process, Lundahl et al.
[53] computed H of the successive difference of the given
dfBm process, i.e., the 1-dfGn. The Hurst exponent of the
1-dfBm is then computed as H1−df Bm = H1−df Gn + 1.
1534-4320 (c) 2018 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This study has extended this method to estimate H for higher
order (mth -order with m ≥ 1) dfGn processes. The detailed
algorithm is provided in Appendix as Algorithm-1.
Both the public dataset considered in these paper have
been captured without any extrinsic stimulus. As discussed
above, it is appropriate to model given EEG signals and
their constituent brain rhythms via dfBm and dfGn random
processes. This is to note that although EEG signals have
been modeled previosuly using fractal dimension assuming
deterministic self-similarity [62]–[67], there is no attempt to
model these signals or constituent brain rhythms as random
processes.
Using the ML estimation method presented in Algorithm-1,
the values of Hurst exponent H averaged over all the segments
of SET A, B, C, D, E, X, Y, and Z have been computed and
presented in Table-I.
TABLE I: Average Hurst exponent H of EEG dataset
Dataset SET Hurst Exponent H
1 A 0.9159
1 B 1.2701
1 C 0.9042
1 D 0.9755
1 E 1.6509
2 X 1.4709
2 Y 1.1375
2 Z 1.5015
It is observed that H is positive and is either between 0 to 1
or between 1 to 2 for all the SETs. This implies that all these
EEG signals belong to 1st -order or 2nd -order dfBm processes
and hence, are subsequently modeled accordingly.
B. Extraction of EEG rhythms using Multirate Filterbank
It is desired to extract the following brain waves from the
given EEG signals: Delta 0.1-4Hz, Theta 4-8Hz, Alpha 8-
12Hz, Beta 12-30Hz, and Gamma 30-60Hz. In [51], [68],
it has been shown that the basis vectors of DCT form the
eigenvectors of the covariance matrices of dfBm processes in
the asymptotic sense. Further, it has been shown in [69] that
if a multirate filterbank is designed using the eigenvectors of
the covariance matrix of a dfBm process, the corresponding
subband outputs are statistically uncorrelated with respect to
each other at all time instants. Since this study has been able
to model EEG signals as dfBm processes (Table-I) and that it
is desired to extract brain rhythms that are uncorrelated with
respect to each other, DCT basis vectors are utilized to design
a multirate filterbank structure [70] to derive brain rhythms
from the given EEG signals.
The block diagram (Figure 1) of the proposed multirate
filterbank provides all the five brain rhythms. Here, input EEG
signal is first passed through a 2-channel DCT-based uniformly
decimated filterbank that decomposes the input EEG signal of
0-60Hz into 0-30Hz signal and 30-60 Hz (Gamma rhythm)
signal. This Gamma rhythm is obtained from the highpass
analysis subband output.
The lowpass output of first level (0-30Hz signal) is passed
through a 5-channel uniformly decimated DCT filterbank. The
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TNSRE.2018.2818123, IEEE
Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering

f31[-n] 3
delta rhythm
0-4Hz
f32[-n] 3
0-12Hz theta rhythm
4-8Hz
f21[-n] 5 5 f21[n] f33[-n] 3
alpha rhythm
8-12Hz
f22[-n] 5 5 f22[n]

f23[-n] 5 5 f23[n]

f24[-n] 5 5 f24[n]
Input EEG signal 0-30Hz
0-60Hz signal
f11[-n] 2 f25[-n] 5 5 f25[n]
Beta rhythm
12-30Hz
f12[-n] 2
Gamma rhythm
Level-1 30-60Hz Level-2 Level-3

Fig. 1: DCT basis vector based 3-level multirate filterbank structure for the extraction of EEG brain rhythms

higher three frequency bands are combined using the corre- the system parameters. Since all the subband signals
sponding synthesis branches to obtain beta band. In the end, except for the Delta band are WSS random processes,
a 3-channel uniformly decimated DCT filterbank is utilized to ARMA modeling is carried out for all these subbands
obtain delta, theta, and alpha brain rhythms. The filters used (except for the delta band). A (2,1) order ARMA system
in each of the three levels of this composite filterbank are the is assumed and the parameters are estimated using the
DCT basis vectors given in Appendix and the filter responses prediction error minimization method. Delta rhythms are
are shown in the supplementary material. largely observed to belong to 1st order dfBm process.
This implies that the first successive difference of these
C. Modeling of EEG Brain Rhythms rhythms will lead to stationary 1st -order fGn process.
Hence, ARMA parameters of delta rhythms have been
Next, these brain rhythms are modeled based on their statis-
computed from the the 1st successive difference signal
tical properties. In [69], it has been shown that a dfBm process
xd [n] computed as:
when passed through a multirate filterbank with eigenvectors
of its covariance matrix as filters leads to stationary processes x[n] = xd [n] − xd [n − 1]. (2)
in all the subbands except for the lowpass branch. This implies
that except for the delta band, other brain rhythms should E. Design of Classifier
comprise zero-mean, Gaussian, stationary random processes,
The complete method from EEG brain rhythm modeling to
i.e., the fGn processes. In order to ascertain this fact, the Hurst
building the classifier is shown in Figure-2.
exponent H of brain rhythms for all the four sets SET C, E,
Y, and Z using Algorithm-A outlined in Appendix.
Features
Input DCT Based
Hurst Exponent Class 1
EEG Filterbank—
D. Feature Identification and SVM
signal EEG
ARMA Classifier
Following features have been chosen for building the clas- 0-60Hz Rhythms Class 2
Parameters
Extraction
sifier: Extraction
1) Hurst exponent: The H value has been computed for all
brain rhythms and is chosen as a feature. Fig. 2: Block diagram of the Method
2) Autoregressive moving average (ARMA) model: ARMA
models are mathematical models for predicting the be- A binary SVM classifier is built using the features listed
havior of a wide sense stationary (WSS) random process above for all possible SET comparisons: A vs B, A vs C, A
using its past and present samples [17]. This model vs D, A vs E, B vs C, B vs D, B vs E, C vs D, C vs E, D vs E,
assumes that a given random process has been produced AB vs CD, AB vs E, CD vs E, ABCD vs E, X vs Y, X vs Z, Y
by passing white noise through a pole-zero filter of order vs Z, and XY vs Z. Results are computed with an RBF (radial
(p,q) where p denotes the number of poles and q denotes basis function) kernel based 10-fold SVM classifier (repeated
the number of zeros used in the filter. For example, the 10 times).
ARMA model equation of order (2,1) is given as below: The value of H and ARMA parameters are used as features
in each subband. In the delta band, ARMA modeling has been
y[n]+a1 y[n−1]+a2 y[n−2] = w[n]+b1 w[n−1], (1)
done after computing the first successive difference. This leads
where y[n] denotes the output WSS random process, to 100 feature vectors of dimension four for all subbands for
w[n] is the input white noise, and a1 , a2 , and b1 are sets A to E and 50 feature vectors for sets X to Z.

1534-4320 (c) 2018 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TNSRE.2018.2818123, IEEE
Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering

Performance is quantified using standard measures, namely, Table-II: Overall performance of classifier for all 18 test cases (14 cases of
sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy. dataset-1, and 4 cases of dataset-2)
Cases Sensitivity Specificity Accuracy
TP A vs. B 0.9710 0.9520 0.9615
Sensitivity(sen) = × 100% (3) A vs. C 0.9700 0.9600 0.9650
TP + FN A vs. D 0.9790 0.9890 0.9840
TN A vs. E 0.9540 0.9430 0.9485
Specificity(spec) = × 100% (4) B vs. C 0.9960 0.9900 0.9930
TN + FP
B vs. D 1.0000 0.9900 0.9950
TP + TN
Accuracy(acc) = × 100% (5) B vs. E 0.9930 0.9870 0.9900
TP + TN + FP + FN C vs. D 0.7620 0.7490 0.7555
C vs. E 0.9800 0.9700 0.9750
where TP, TN, FP and FN stand for true positive (e.g., inter- D vs. E 0.9650 0.9620 0.9635
ictal classified as inter-ictal), true negative (e.g., ictal classified AB vs. CD 0.9745 0.9795 0.9770
as ictal), false positive (e.g., ictal classified as inter-ictal) and AB vs. E 0.9740 0.9715 0.9727
false negative (e.g., inter-ictal classified as ictal), respectively. CD vs. E 0.9685 0.9700 0.9692
ABCD vs. E 0.9797 0.9760 0.9779
X vs. Y 0.7600 0.7320 0.7460
IV. R ESULTS X vs. Z 0.7880 0.8060 0.7970
Y vs. Z 0.9720 0.9580 0.9650
The average Hurst exponent value for each of the brain XY vs. Z 0.8930 0.9430 0.9180
rhythms is computed (Table-A1, Appendix). It is noted that
the delta band has positive H value for most of the dataset. TABLE-III: Classifier Performance: Inter-ictal vs. ictal (in %)
This confirms that delta rhythm is a non-stationary zero-mean, Dataset-1: Inter-ictal (D) vs. ictal (E)
Gaussian fBm process that absorbs all the non-stationarity of (%) Alpha Beta Gamma Delta Theta Overall
Sen 81 82 88 95 90 97
EEG signals. Further, it is noted that the H value of rest of Spec 79 77 89 91 88 97
the brain rhythms are negative. This implies that these brain Acc 80 79 89 93 89 97
rhythms constitute stationary dfGn processes. These observa- Dataset 2: Inter-ictal (Y) vs. ictal (Z)
tions are in consonance with the theoretical results of [69] and (%) Alpha Beta Gamma Delta Theta Overall
hence, provides validation to the modeling proposed in this Sen 72 67 86 97 95 97
Spec 60 74 90 98 94 96
paper. Further, it is noted that theta, alpha, and gamma rhythms Acc 65 70 88 97 94 97
belong to 1st -order dfGn processes with H ∈ (−1, 0) and beta
rhythms belong to 2nd -order dfGn with H ∈ (−2, −1).
Next, the mean values of ARMA parameters a1 , a2 , and
indeed useful. Further, ARMA parameters are also found
b1 are estimated for both the dataset (Table-A2 and Table-
to be statistically significant features for the required SET
A3, Appendix). The statistical significance of the features
comparisons. Out of the three ARMA parameters, about two
extracted, on the binary SET classifications for all cases, was
parameters are observed to be significant in different brain
also carried out.
rhythms (except for the beta rhythm) for all SET comparisons.
In general, an independent sample t-test is used to test the
In general, H fails to distinguish between brain activities in
statistical significance of the features with Null Hypothesis
the alpha rhythm, while ARMA parameters fail in the beta
that the mean of the feature across the two SET is same. This
rhythm.
test requires the feature to be normally distributed. In case
Two SET comparisons C Vs D and X Vs Y are observed
of failure of the normality assumption, Mann Whitney U test
to have low accuracy results of around 75%. These results
(Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test) can be conducted on the median
are understandable because these SET comparisons have only
of the feature. Since all the features did not follow the normal
a few significant features, 3 significant features, respectively
distribution, Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test at 5% significance level
(Table-A4, Appendix). SETs C Vs D comparison is between
(p < 0.05) is used. In addition, Bonferroni-Holm correction
two inter-ictal SETs. Although these SETs are captured from
for multiple comparisons was used to control the family-wise
different regions of the brain, these have been captured simul-
error rate at 5% significance level (p < 0.05). These results
taneously from the same subjects and hence, may not have
are shown for all the features on all possible SET comparisons
much differences in the brain activity.
in Table-A4, Appendix.
SET B could be classified from SETs C, D, and E with
Next, classifier performance for all possible SET compar-
approximately 100% accuracy. This shows that the designed
isons is computed (Table-II). Since inter-ictal versus ictal is
features are able to easily distinguish pre-ictal (SET B) from
generally more difficult classification problem, results of a
inter-ictal (C and D) and ictal (E) brain activity.
classifier trained on the features of only one of the brain
Between inter-ictal and ictal comparisons (D Vs E and Y
rhythms for both the dataset are also computed (Table-III).
vs Z), it is observed that results of sensitivity, specificity,
and accuracy of the classifier built using only delta band
V. D ISCUSSION AND L IMITATIONS features are above 95% (Table-III). This shows very good
The statistical significance testing on features indicates that differentiation ability of delta rhythms. In fact, the slow wave
parameter H is a statistically significant feature for beta, abnormalities associated with brain dysfunction are found
gamma, delta, and theta rhythms for almost all the SET mainly in the delta rhythm.
comparisons (Table-A4). This shows that this modeling is Likewise, good classification results of above 90% are

1534-4320 (c) 2018 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TNSRE.2018.2818123, IEEE
Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering
observed on D Vs E and Y vs Z with theta rhythm features.
It has been reported earlier that larger contingents of theta
waves are abnormal and are caused by pathological problems
in waking adults [20]. Also, for various brain disorders, theta
and delta waves become more active [20]. Further, seizure may
occur at different frequencies but generally occur in the range
of 3-6 Hz and are, therefore, best captured in the delta and
theta ranges [20]. Correspondingly, results of this study also
indicate that these rhythms should be analyzed carefully for
building robust classifiers and diagnostic tools.
The accuracy in the alpha band is lower but that is no
surprise because alpha waves are usually found in the occipital
lobes [20], while the above used dataset is a single channel
EEG dataset from other lobes. This is one of the reasons for
the poor classification results in the alpha band.
Authors in [71] studied ictal and inter-ictal EEG dataset (C
versus E) classification using the permutation entropy features
and SVM. They reported classification accuracy of 88%.
Authors in [72] used discrete wavelet transform-based approx-
imate entropy (ApEn) features with artificial neural network
to classify the EEG dataset and obtained 100% (A versus E),
99.2% (B versus E), 100% (C versus E) and 95% (D versus E)
accuracy. The least squares support vector machine (LS-SVM)
model-based methods coefficients are used for classification of
dataset (A versus E) and 99.56% accuracy obtained by authors
in [46]. Authors in [45] used discrete wavelet transform,
principal component analysis (PCA), independent component
analysis (ICA), linear discriminant analysis (LDA) and SVM
for classification of EEG dataset (A versus E) and obtained
98.75% (PCA), 99.50% (ICA), and 100% (LDA) accuracy.
Line length features with artificial neural networks are used
by authors in [44] for classification of EEG dataset and
obtained 99.85% (A versus E) and 97.77% (ABCD versus E)
accuracy. Authors in [42] used EMD and LS-SVM approach
to classify EEG dataset (ABCD versus E) and obtained 100%
classification accuracy. Permutation entropy and SVM are used
in [47] for EEG dataset classification and obtained 93.55% (A
versus E), 82.88% (B versus E), 88% (C versus E), and 79.94%
(D versus E) classification accuracy.
Recently, authors in [73] studied the same EEG dataset (C
versus E) classification using the features mean frequencies
and RMS bandwidths of EEG rhythms derived form the fast
Fourier transform (FFT) and reported 100% accuracy. The best
classification accuracy for inter-ictal and ictal EEG dataset-2
(Y versus Z) classification is 99.6% which was reported in [56]
using the standard deviation and root-mean-square features
with a general regression neural network (GRNN) classifier.
All these studies have used either dataset-1 or dataset-2 for
classification of ictal, inter-ictal, and normal EEG. They have
derived features from the dataset either directly or by diving
the each channel data into EEG rhythms.
This study has developed a novel signal-modeling based
classifier approach for seizure detection in EEG signals. First,
a new method of 3-stage DCT based multirate filterbank is
proposed to decompose the EEG signals into brain rhythms.
Next, the theta, alpha and gamma rhythms are modeled as 1st
order fGn, while the beta rhythms are modeled as 2nd order
fGn processes. The Hurst exponent and ARMA parameters are
1534-4320 (c) 2018 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
used as features for classification of ictal and inter-ictal EEG
dataset with 10-fold cross validation (repeated 10 times) in
SVM classifier and are shown to yield an averaged accuracy
of 97% on both dataset-1 and dataset-2 (Table-III).
The overall averaged performance of classifier for a total of
18 tests cases (14 cases for dataset-1, and 4 cases for dataset-
2) is computed (Table-II). The performance of the classifier
built using the proposed methodology is observed to be above
95% in 14 combinations. SVM classifier is used with three
different types of kernels, namely, the Gaussian, polynomial
and linear kernels, and it is observed that the overall averaged
sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy are almost the same with
all these kernels. The LS-SVM classifier was also tried with
all three kernels and results were observed to be almost the
same as reported in this study with no significant change.
Thus, the proposed method is robust and is almost inde-
pendent of the type of kernels and classifiers. All the results
reported are obtained from the SVM classifier with Gaussian
kernel (Table-II and Table-III). The four least classification
accuracy, obtained amongst 18 cases of both dataset, are 75.5%
in C vs. D, 74.6% in X vs. Y, 79.7% in X vs. Z, and 91.8% in
XY vs. Z sets (Table-II). Accuracy was observed to be more
than 95% in all other cases and reaches up to 99.5% in B vs.
D sets classification. The averaged classification accuracy of
seizure and seizure-free (i.e. ABCD vs. E) sets in dataset-1
is 97.79%. Thus, the robustness and efficacy of the proposed
method is validated thoroughly on two dataset with 18 cases
using the SVM classifier and by employing three different
kernels. Results are consistent on both the dataset as well as
are consistent with the theory of EEG signals.
Proposed method is computationally efficient. Although
coding was not optimzed for best performance, computation
of features on SET A consisting of 100 sample functions of
4097 samples took 100.13 seconds on an Intel (R) Core (TM)
i5-6200U CPU @2.3GHz; RAM 8GB; 64 bit OS Windows
10 on MATLAB2017a. The classifier design for SET A Vs.
E took 14.84 sec including training and testing time. Thus,
the method can be easily implemented for real-time epileptic
seizure diagnosis.
Limitations
The work has some limitations. Firstly, the proposed method
has been used in two dataset where dataset-2 is relatively
small. Thus, training and testing of the classifier built may
not be sufficient to produce consistent and optimal results.
Secondly, although we have assumed the EEG signals to
belong to a class of self-similar random processes, this is
an oversimplified assumption owing to two reasons: 1) the
self-similarity index is computed using given (short) sample
functions and 2) in general, these may belong to multifractal
random processes. Hence, the proposed methodology needs to
be validated with larger dataset and on different classification
problems such as real-time epileptic seizure diagnosis, focal
and non-focal EEG signals classification, along with some
other brain computer interface (BCI) classification problems.
We plan to take up these problems in the near future.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TNSRE.2018.2818123, IEEE
Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering

VI. C ONCLUSIONS A discrete-time fractional Brownian motion (dfBm) is de-

This paper has presented a new methodology of modeling fined by considering uniformly sampled continuous-time fBm
EEG signals as fractional Brownian motion random processes process [50]. Since a dfBm process is a non-stationary random
to describe EEG data that allows to enhance classification process, its auto-covariance is a function of two time indices
accuracy of seizure and seizure-free epochs. DCT basis vectors and is given as below [50]:
are used as filters to design a 3-level multirate filterbank. 2
σH
This composite multirate filterbank structure is utilized to rH [n1 , n2 ] = (|n1 |2H − |n1 − n2 |2H + |n2 |2H ), (7)
2
decompose EEG signal into its constituent brain rhythms
that are modeled as discrete-time fBm and higher order fGn 2 1
where σH = var(ZH [1]) = .
random processes. Γ(2H + 1)|sin(πH)|
The Hurst exponent H characterizing these brain rhythms
and ARMA parameters are used as features in an SVM B. Discrete-time fGn Processes
classifier to classify ictal and inter-ictal EEG segments. The
classifier is tested and validated successfully on data available A 1st -order dfGn (1-dfGn) process is defined as the 1st -
from two public dataset. Good results on both the dataset order difference of dfBm [50] as below:
underscore the robustness of the proposed signal modeling 4
and classification method. The classifier provides an overall Y1 [n] = ZH [n + 1] − ZH [n]. (8)
accuracy of 97% in both dataset for ictal and inter-ictal EEG
The covariance sequence of a 1-dfGn process can be written
sets classification. The classification accuracy of seizure and
easily using (7) and (8) as below:
seizure-free (i.e. ABCD vs. E) sets in dataset-1 is 98%. The
proposed method has been validated with two dataset with 18 2
σH
different classification cases, produced good consistent results rY1 [n] = (|n + 1|2H − 2|n|2H + |n − 1|2H ). (9)
2
in terms of averaged performance parameters, namely, sensi-
tivity, specificity and accuracy. It is also found to be robust A 1-dfGn process is a wide-sense stationary random process
and almost independent of the type of kernels (Gaussian, with power spectral density falling as 1/|f |2H−1 where H ∈
polynomial and linear kernels) and classifiers (SVM and LS- (0, 1) [50]. In other words, the spectrum of 1-dfGn can be said
SVM) used in this study. to be proportional to 1/|f |2H+1 with H ∈ (−1, 0).
In summary, this paper has made a significant contribution Similarly, 2nd -order difference of a dfBm process provides
in modeling of EEG signal rhythms based on higher order the dfGn (2-dfGn) defined as below [50]:
fractional Gaussian noise processes and extraction of rhythms 4
via multilevel DCT based multirate filterbank. EEG signal Y2 [n] = ZH [n + 2] − 2ZH [n + 1] + ZH [n]. (10)
classification on different dataset establish the robustness of
Correspondingly, the covariance of 2-dfGn process is given
the proposed methodology.
by:
To demonstrate the efficacy of the proposed method, in this
study, we have considered two dataset of EEG data classifica- 2 
σH
tion. The directions of future research would be (1) to apply rY2 [n] = − |n + 2|2H + 4|n + 1|2H
2
the proposed method to a large dataset for seizure and seizure- 
− 6|n|2H + 4|n − 1|2H − |n − 2|2H . (11)
free EEG signals classification, (2) to use the proposed method
for classification of focal and non-focal EEG signals, along
The spectrum of a 2-dfGn is directly proportional to
with some other nonstationary signal classification problems.
1/|f |2H−2 with H ∈ (0, 1) or it can be said to be directly
proportional to 1/|f |2H+1 with H ∈ (−2, −1). In general, an
A PPENDIX mth -order dfGn is defined as
A. Discrete-time fBm Processes k  
4 X k
Fractional Brownian motion are denoted symbolically as Yk [n] = (−1)k−j ZH [n + j] (12)
j
j=0
d
ZH (at) = aH ZH (t), (6)
with the covariance given by
where a is a scaling constant greater than zero and H is called k
2
 
the self-similarity index or the Hurst exponent. This parameter σH X 2k
rYk [n] = (−1)k (−1)j |n + j|2H . (13)
helps in writing explicit expressions of the statistics of the 2 k+j
j=−k
random process ZH (t). The equality in (1) holds for all finite
order distributions in the statistical sense [49]. In order to distinguish dfBm, 1-dfGn, and 2-dfGn based on
Depending on the value of H, the order of an fBm process is the value of Hurst exponent H, we considered 0<H<1 for
specified. These processes are non-stationary with an averaged dfBm, -1<H<0 for 1-dfGn, and -2<H<-1 for 2-dfGn, i.e.,
power spectral density (PSD) proportional to 1/|f |2β , where we assumed that the spectrum of all these random processes
β = 2H + 1 and f is frequency (in Hertz) [52]. Hence, these is proportional to 1/|f |2H+1 , irrespective of whether they are
processes are also called as 1/f processes. dfBm or dfGn processes of any order.

1534-4320 (c) 2018 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TNSRE.2018.2818123, IEEE
Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering

TABLE-A1: Hurst exponent H of all brain rhythms

Brain Dataset 1 Dataset 2
Rhythms SET A SET B SET C SET D SET E SET X SET Y SET Z
Alpha -0.5098 -0.5004 -0.5016 -0.5059 -0.5141 -0.4980 -0.5094 -0.5067
Beta -1.4637 -1.3926 -1.4163 -1.4002 -1.4020 -1.3408 -1.3750 -1.3785
Gamma -0.5418 -0.3561 -0.2556 -0.1958 -0.2154 -0.0978 -0.2217 -0.1339
Delta 0.1811 -0.1702 0.5339 0.4706 -0.1584 0.2565 0.1844 0.5596
Theta -0.7013 -0.7148 -0.5455 -0.5678 -0.6944 -0.6454 -0.6909 -0.5247

TABLE-A2: ARMA parameters of Dataset-1

Brain A B C D E
Rhythms a1 a2 b1 a1 a2 b1 a1 a2 b1 a1 a2 b1 a1 a2 b1
Alpha -0.3613 -0.1176 -0.4363 -0.1537 -0.1478 -0.2437 0.0405 -0.1176 0.0096 0.0665 -0.1245 0.0395 -0.2252 -0.0801 -0.2946
Beta -0.3557 0.4860 -1.000 -0.4386 0.3924 -1.000 -0.4065 0.3815 -1.000 -0.4219 0.3660 -1.000 -0.4269 0.4523 -1.000
Gamma -0.6305 0.4593 -0.4970 -1.0211 0.6331 -0.8697 -0.7616 0.2763 -0.3313 -0.7095 0.3161 -0.1678 -0.4602 0.4227 0.3154
Delta* -0.2614 0.0923 -0.6832 0.5215 0.3852 -0.1305 -0.5511 0.3866 -0.3590 -0.4727 0.4335 -0.3328 -0.3820 0.3712 -0.8746
Theta 0.3717 0.1892 0.0284 0.7206 0.3221 0.3257 -0.5217 0.3042 -0.4603 -0.4749 0.3286 -0.4390 -0.2666 0.1741 -0.5228
* ARMA parameters of Delta band are calculated after computing its first difference.
TABLE-A3: ARMA parameters of Dataset-2
Brain X Y Z
Rhythms a1 a2 b1 a1 a2 b1 a1 a2 b1
Alpha 0.1684 -0.1809 0.1610 0.3785 -0.1759 0.3739 -0.0804 -0.1297 -0.1195
Beta -0.4375 0.2929 -1.000 -0.4347 0.2754 -1.000 -0.4319 0.3480 -1.000
Gamma -1.150 0.5426 -0.4325 -1.0874 0.4636 -0.7115 -0.5720 0.2981 0.1265
Delta* -0.1746 0.4084 -0.0594 -0.0219 0.4933 -0.0162 -0.6995 0.1797 -0.6414
Theta -0.0573 0.3510 -0.0136 0.0709 0.4086 0.0356 -0.5751 0.1471 -0.5940
* ARMA parameters of Delta band are calculated after computing its first difference.

Table-A4: Statistical significance testing of features

Band feature A Vs B A Vs C A Vs D A Vs E B Vs C B Vs D B Vs E C Vs D C Vs E D Vs E X Vs Y X Vs Z Y Vs Z
H             
a1             
Alpha
a2             
b1             
H             
a1             
Beta
a2             
b1             
H             
a1             
Gamma
a2             
b1             
H             
a1             
Delta
a2             
b1             
H             
a1             
Theta
a2             
b1             
: Passed the test; : failed the test;
Bonferroni-Holm correction test has been used for multiple comparisons to control the family-wise error rate at level p≤0.05.

C. Estimation of Hurst Exponent for Higher Order Self- (pdf) as below:

Similar Processes
−(yT K−1 y)
1
In this study, we have extended the maximum likelihood p(y; H) = e 2 . (14)
(ML) method of estimating Hurst exponent of 1-dfBm process (2π)N/2 |K|1/2
[53] to estimate H for higher order (mth -order with m ≥ 1)
where K = E[yyT ] is the covariance matrix.
dfGn processes with detailed steps as below.
2) In order to estimate H, the logarithm of p(y; H) given
Algorithm-A: Step-1: below needs to be maximized (ML criterion).
1) Construct a vector y={Ym [0], Ym [1], ..., Ym [N − 1]} of −N 1 (yT K−1 y)
an m-dfGn sample function. The vector y is zero-mean log p(y; H) = log (2π) − log |K| − .
2 2 2
Gaussian distributed with probability density function (15)

1534-4320 (c) 2018 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TNSRE.2018.2818123, IEEE
Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering

3) The covariance matrix K of an m-dfGn process is formed [7] D. Garrett, D. A. Peterson, C. W. Anderson, and M. H. Thaut, “Compar-
using (13) where K can be written as ison of linear, nonlinear, and feature selection methods for EEG signal
classification,” IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng., vol. 11, no. 2,
2
K = σH K0 (16) pp. 141–144, 2003.
[8] H. C. Shin, S. Tong, S. Yamashita, X. Jia, R. G. Geocadin, and N. V.
2
and σH is as given in (7). Thakor, “Quantitative EEG assessment of brain injury and hypothermic
neuroprotection after cardiac arrest,” in Engineering in Medicine and
On substituting (16) into (15), we obtain Biology Society, 2006. EMBS’06. 28th Annual International Conference
of the IEEE. IEEE, 2006, pp. 6229–6232.
−N N 2
log p(y; H) = log (2π) − log σH [9] A. J. Lim, and W. D. Winters, “A practical method for automatic real-
2 2 time EEG sleep state analysis,” IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng., vol. BME-27,
1 (yT K0−1 y) no. 4, pp. 212–220, 1980.
− log |K0 | − 2 . (17) [10] M. Diykh, Y. Li, and P. Wen, “EEG sleep stages classification based
2 2σH on time domain features and structural graph similarity,” IEEE Trans.
2 Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng., vol. 24, no. 11, pp. 1159–1168, 2016.
4) Equation (17) is maximized over σH by taking the [11] J. C. Principe and S.-H. Park, “An expert system architecture for abnor-
2
derivative with respect to σH and equating it to zero. mal EEG discrimination,” Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society,
This gives 1990., Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual International Conference of
2 yT K0−1 y the IEEE. IEEE, pp. 1376–1377, 1990.
σ̂H = . (18) [12] A. Myrden, T. Chau, “A passive EEG-BCI for single-trial detection of
N changes in mental state,” IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng., vol.
5) On substituting (18) into (17), we obtain the function 25, no. 4, pp. 345–356, 2017.
[13] A. Tuunainen, U. Nousiainen, A. Pilke, E. Mervaala, J. Partanen,
that is to be maximized over H as below and P. Riekkinen, “Spectral EEG during short-term discontinuation of
antiepileptic medication in partial epilepsy,” Epilepsia, vol. 36, no. 8,
Ĥ = max (−N log (yT K0−1 y) − log |K0 |) − m. pp. 817–823, 1995.
0<H<1
(19) [14] B. Clemens, G. Szigeti, and Z. Barta, “EEG frequency profiles of
idiopathic generalised epilepsy syndromes,” Epilepsy Res., vol. 42,
The estimated value of H using (19) for 1-dfGn will no. 2–3, pp. 105–115, 2000.
be in the range -1<H<0, while that of 2-dfGn will be [15] C. Borel, and D. Hanley, “Neurological intensive care unit monitoring,”
-2<H<-1. Critical Care Clinics Symposium on Neurological Intensive Care. PA:
Saunders, 1985, pp. 223–239.
[16] R. Agarwal, J. Gotman, D. Flanagan, and B. Rosenblatt, “Automatic
D. DCT basis based filters EEG analysis during long-term monitoring in the ICU,” Electroen-
cephalogr. Clin. Neurophysiol., vol. 107, no. 1, pp. 44–58, 1998.
The filters used in each of the three levels of this composite [17] D. G. Manolakis, V. K. Ingle, and S. M. Kogon, Statistical and adap-
filterbank of Fig-1 are the DCT basis vectors given as below: tive signal processing: spectral estimation, signal modeling, adaptive
filtering, and array processing. McGraw-Hill Boston, 2000.
1 [18] L. Rankine, N. Stevenson, M. Mesbah, and B. Boashash, “A nonstation-
fk1 [n] = √ ; k = 1, 2, 3; 0 ≤ n ≤ Q − 1
Q ary model of newborn EEG,” IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng., vol. 54, no. 1,
r pp. 19–28, 2007.
2 π(2n + 1)(l − 1) [19] G. Tognola, P. Ravazzani, T. Locatelli, F. Minicucci, F. Grandori, and
fkl [n] = cos ; (20)
Q 2Q G. Comi, “A parametric method for the analysis of temporal and spatial
variability in the interictal EEG signal,” in Engineering in Medicine
k = 1, 2, 3; 2 ≤ l ≤ Q; 0 ≤ n ≤ Q − 1 and Biology Society, 1994. Engineering Advances: New Opportunities
for Biomedical Engineers. Proceedings of the 16th Annual International
where k is the level number (1, 2, or 3), Q is the downsampling Conference of the IEEE. IEEE, 1994, pp. 1234–1235.
factor (or the length of filters in each stage), and l denotes the [20] S. Tong, and N. V. Thakor, Quantitative EEG analysis methods and
analysis (or synthesis) filter number at each stage with l = 1 clinical applications. Artech House, 2009.
[21] M. A. Naderi, and H. Mahdavi-Nasab, “Analysis and classification of
as the lowpass filter, l = Q denotes the highpass filter, and EEG signals using spectral analysis and recurrent neural networks,”
2 < l < Q − 1 denote the bandpass filters. Filter responses Biomedical Engineering (ICBME), 2010 17th Iranian Conference of.
are shown in the supplementary material. IEEE, pp. 1–4, 2010.
[22] P. Singh, R. B. Pachori, “Classification of focal and nonfocal EEG
signals using features derived from Fourier-based rhythms,” J. Mech.
R EFERENCES Med. Biol., Vol. 17, No. 7, 1740002, pp. 1–16, 2017.
[1] L. D. Iasemidis, “Epileptic seizure prediction and control,” IEEE Trans. [23] M. Sharma, R. B. Pachori, and U. R. Acharya, “A new approach to
Biomed. Eng., vol. 50, no. 5, pp. 549–558, 2003. characterize epileptic seizures using analytic time-frequency flexible
[2] J. Corsini, L. Shoker, S. Sanei, and G. Alarcon, “Epileptic seizure wavelet transform and fractal dimension,” Pattern Recognit. Lett, vol.
predictability from scalp EEG incorporating constrained blind source 94, pp. 172–179, 2017.
separation,” IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng., vol. 53, no. 5, pp. 790–799, [24] A. K. Tiwari, R. B. Pachori, V. Kanhangad, and B. K. Panigrahi,
2006. “Automated diagnosis of epilepsy using key-point based local binary
[3] M. Steriade, P. Gloor, R. R. Llinás, F. H. Lopes da Silva, and pattern of EEG signals,” IEEE J. Biomed. Health Inform., vol. 21, no.
M. M. Mesulam, “Basic mechanisms of cerebral rhythmic activities,” 4, pp. 888–896, 2017.
Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol, vol. 76, no. 6, pp. 481–508, [25] A. Bhattacharyya, R. B. Pachori, A. Upadhyay, and U. R. Acharya,
1990. “Tunable-Q wavelet transform based multiscale entropy measure for
[4] L. Mingyang, C. Wanzhong, and Z. Tao, “Automatic epileptic EEG automated classification of epileptic EEG signals,” Applied Sciences,
detection using DT-CWT-based non-linear features,” Biomed Signal vol. 7 (4), 385, pp. 01–18, 2017.
Process Control, vol. 34, pp. 114–125, 2017. [26] D. Bhati, M. Sharma, R. B. Pachori, and V. M. Gadre, “Time-frequency
[5] J. Abeg Kumar, and B. Haider, “Local pattern transformation based localized three-band biorthogonal wavelet filter bank using semidefinite
feature extraction techniques for classification of epileptic EEG signals,” relaxation and nonlinear least squares with epileptic seizure EEG signal
Biomed Signal Process Control, vol. 34, pp. 81–92 2017. classification,” Digital Signal Processing, vol. 62, pp. 259–273, 2017.
[6] P. Shivnarayan, and P. Trilochan, “Detection of epileptic seizure using [27] R. Sharma and R. B. Pachori, “Classification of epileptic seizures in EEG
kraskov entropy applied on tunable-q wavelet transform of EEG signals,” signals based on phase space representation of intrinsic mode functions,”
Biomed Signal Process Control, vol. 34, pp. 74–80 2017. Expert Syst Appl., vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 1106–1117, 2015.

1534-4320 (c) 2018 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TNSRE.2018.2818123, IEEE
Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering
[28] T. S. Kumar, V. Kanhangad, and R. B. Pachori, “Classification of seizure
and seizure-free EEG signals using local binary patterns,” Biomed Signal
Process Control, vol. 15, pp. 33–40, January 2015.
[29] R. B. Pachori, and S. Patidar, “Epileptic seizure classification in EEG
signals using second-order difference plot of intrinsic mode functions,”
Comput Methods Programs Biomed., vol. 113, no. 2, pp. 494–502, 2014.
[30] V. Joshi, R. B. Pachori, and A. Vijesh, “Classification of ictal and
seizure-free EEG signals using fractional linear prediction,” Biomed
Signal Process Control, vol. 9, pp. 1–5, January 2014.
[31] R. B. Pachori, and V. Bajaj, “Analysis of normal and epileptic seizure
EEG signals using empirical mode decomposition,” Comput Methods
Programs Biomed., vol. 104, no. 3, pp. 373–381, December 2011.
[32] R. B. Pachori, “Discrimination between ictal and seizure-free EEG
signals using empirical mode decomposition,” Research Letters in Signal
Processing, 2008.
[33] U. R. Acharya, S. V. Sree, G. Swapna, R. J. Martis, and J. S. Suri,
“Automated EEG analysis of epilepsy: a review,” Knowledge-Based
Systems, 45, 147–165, 2013.
[34] A. S. Zandi, M. Javidan, G. A. Dumont, and R. Tafreshi, “Automated
real-time epileptic seizure detection in scalp EEG recordings using an
algorithm based on wavelet packet transform,” IEEE Trans. Biomed.
Eng., vol. 57, no. 7, pp. 1639–1651, 2010.
[35] P. P. Acharjee, and C. Shahnaz, “Multiclass epileptic seizure classifi-
cation using time-frequency analysis of EEG signals,” Electrical and
Computer Engineering (ICECE), 2010 7th International Conference of,
pp. 260–263, 2012.
[36] Q. Shuren, and J. Zhong, “Extraction of features in EEG signals with the
non-stationary signal analysis technology,” in Engineering in Medicine
and Biology Society, 2004. IEMBS’04. 26th Annual International Con-
ference of the IEEE, vol. 1. IEEE, pp. 349–352, 2004.
[37] Y. Song, J. Crowcroft, and J. Zhang, “Epileptic EEG signal analysis
and identification based on nonlinear features,” in Bioinformatics and
Biomedicine (BIBM), 2012 IEEE International Conference on. IEEE,
pp. 1–6, 2012.
[38] S. M. Pincus, “Approximate entropy as a measure of system complexity,”
Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, vol. 88, no. 6, pp. 2297–2301, 1991.
[39] H. Adeli, S. Ghosh-Dastidar, and N. Dadmehr, “A wavelet-chaos
methodology for analysis of EEGs and EEG subbands to detect seizure
and epilepsy,” IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng., vol. 54, no. 2, pp. 205–211,
2007.
[40] H. Jing, and M. Takigawa, “Low sampling rate induces high correlation
dimension on electroencephalograms from healthy subjects,” Psychiatry
Clin Neurosci., vol. 54, no. 4, pp. 407–412, 2000.
[41] S. M. S. Alam, and M. I. H. Bhuiyan, “Detection of seizure and epilepsy
using higher-order statistics in the EMD domain,” IEEE J. Biomed.
Health Inform., vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 312–318, 2013.
[42] V. Bajaj, and R. B. Pachori, “Classification of seizure and non-seizure
EEG signals using empirical mode decomposition,” IEEE Trans Inf
Technol Biomed, vol. 16, no. 6, pp. 1135–1142, 2012.
[43] T. Bojić, A. Vuckovic, and A. Kalauzi, “Modeling EEG fractal dimen-
sion changes in wake and drowsy states in humans–a preliminary study,”
J. Theor. Biol., vol. 262, no. 2, pp. 214–222, 2010.
[44] L. Guo, D. Rivero, J. Dorado, J. R. Rabuñal, and A. Pazos, “Automatic
epileptic seizure detection in EEGs based on line length feature and
artificial neural networks,” Journal of neuroscience methods, vol. 191,
no. 1, pp. 101–109, 2010.
[45] A. Subasi, and M. I. Gursoy, “EEG signal classification using PCA,
ICA, LDA and support vector machines,” Expert Syst Appl., vol. 37,
no. 12, pp. 8659–8666, 2010.
[46] E. D. Übeyli, “Least squares support vector machine employing model-
based methods coefficients for analysis of EEG signals,” Expert Syst
Appl., vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 233–239, 2010.
[47] N. Nicolaou, and J. Georgiou, “Detection of epileptic electroencephalo-
gram based on permutation entropy and support vector machines,”
Expert Syst Appl., vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 202–209, 2012.
[48] S. Mihandoost, and M. C. Amirani, “EEG signal analysis using spectral
correlation function & GARCH model,” Signal, Image and Video
Processing, vol. 9, no. 6, pp. 1461–1472, 2015.
[49] B. B. Mandelbrot, and J. W. Van Ness, “Fractional Brownian motions,
fractional noises and applications,” SIAM review, vol. 10, no. 4, pp.
422–437, 1968.
[50] E. Perrin, R. Harba, C. Berzin-Joseph, I. Iribarren, and A. Bonami, “nth-
order fractional Brownian motion and fractional Gaussian noises,” IEEE
Trans. Sig. Process, vol. 49, no. 5, pp. 1049–1059, 2001.
[51] A. Gupta and S. D. Joshi, “DCT and eigenvectors of covariance of
1st and 2nd order discrete fractional Brownian motion,” arXiv preprint
arXiv:1302.5556, 2013.
1534-4320 (c) 2018 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
10
[52] P. Flandrin, “On the spectrum of fractional Brownian motions,” IEEE
Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 197–199, 1989.
[53] T. Lundahl, W. J. Ohley, S. M. Kay, and R. Siffert, “Fractional Brownian
motion: A maximum likelihood estimator and its application to image
texture,” IEEE Trans. Med. Imag., vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 152–161, 1986.
[54] R. G. Andrzejak, K. Lehnertz, F. Mormann, C. Rieke, P. David, and C. E.
Elger, “Indications of nonlinear deterministic and finite-dimensional
structures in time series of brain electrical activity: Dependence on
recording region and brain state,” Physical Review E, vol. 64, no. 6,
p. 061907, 2001.
[55] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308719109 EEG Epilepsy
Datasets.
[56] P. Swami, T. K. Gandhi, B. K. Panigrahi, M. Tripathi, and S. Anand, “A
novel robust diagnostic model to detect seizures in electroencephalog-
raphy,” Expert Syst Appl., vol. 56, pp. 116–130, 2016.
[57] T. Gandhi, P. Chakraborty, G. G. Roy, and B. K. Panigrahi, “Discrete
harmony search based expert model for epileptic seizure detection in
electroencephalography,” Expert Syst Appl., vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 4055–
4062, 2012.
[58] T. Gandhi, B. K. Panigrahi, and S. Anand, “A comparative study of
wavelet families for EEG signal classification,” Neurocomputing, vol. 74,
no. 17, pp. 3051–3057, 2011.
[59] T. Gandhi, B. K. Panigrahi, M. Bhatia, and S. Anand, “Expert model
for detection of epileptic activity in EEG signature,” Expert Syst Appl.,
vol. 37, no.4, pp. 3513–3520, 2010.
[60] H.-W. Steinberg, T. Gasser, and J. Franke, “Fitting autoregressive models
to EEG time series: An empirical comparison of estimates of the order,”
IEEE Trans. Acoust., Speech, Signal Process., vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 143–
150, 1985.
[61] T. W. Picton, S. Bentin, P. Berg, E. Donchin, S. A. Hillyard, R. Johnson,
G. A. Miller, W. Ritter, D. S. Ruchkin, M. D. Rugg, and M. J. Taylor,
“Guidelines for using human event-related potentials to study cognition:
Recording standards and publication criteria,” Psychophysiology, vol. 37,
no. 2, pp. 127–152, 2000.
[62] D. Easwaramoorthy and R. Uthayakumar, “Analysis of EEG signals
using advanced generalized fractal dimensions,” in Computing Commu-
nication and Networking Technologies (ICCCNT), 2010 International
Conference on. IEEE, pp. 1–6, 2010.
[63] A. Accardo, M. Affinito, M. Carrozzi, and F. Bouquet, “Use of the fractal
dimension for the analysis of electroencephalographic time series,”
Biological Cybernetics, vol. 77, no. 5, pp. 339–350, 1997.
[64] V. Cabukovski, N. d. M. Rudolf, and N. Mahmood, “Measuring the
fractal dimension of EEG signals: selection and adaptation of method
for real-time analysis,” WIT Transactions on Biomedicine and Health,
vol. 1, pp. 285–292, 1993.
[65] A. Petrosian, “Kolmogorov complexity of finite sequences and recog-
nition of different preictal EEG patterns,” in Computer-Based Medical
Systems, 1995., Proceedings of the Eighth IEEE Symposium on. IEEE,
pp. 212–217, 1995.
[66] N. Pradhan and D. Narayana Dutt, “Use of running fractal dimension
for the analysis of changing patterns in electroencephalograms,” Comput.
Biol. Med, vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 381–388, 1993.
[67] R. Esteller, G. Vachtsevanos, J. Echauz, T. Henry, P. Pennell, C. Epstein,
R. Bakay, C. Bowen, and B. Litt, “Fractal dimension characterizes
seizure onset in epileptic patients,” Acoustics, Speech, and Signal
Processing, 1999. Proceedings., 1999 IEEE International Conference
on, vol. 4. IEEE, pp. 2343–2346, 1999.
[68] A. Gupta, and S. Joshi, “Connection between DCT and discrete-time
fractional brownian motion,” in Data Compression Conference (DCC),
2016. IEEE, 2016, pp. 598–598.
[69] A. Gupta, and S. Joshi, “Some studies on the structure of covariance
matrix of discrete-time fBm,” IEEE Trans. Sig. Process, vol. 56, no. 10,
pp. 4635–4650, 2008.
[70] M. Karlekar, and A. Gupta, “Stochastic modeling of EEG rhythms
with fractional Gaussian noise,” in Signal Processing Conference (EU-
SIPCO), 2014 Proceedings of the 22nd European. IEEE, 2014, pp.
2520–2524.
[71] N. Nicolaou and J. Georgiou, “Detection of epileptic electroencephalo-
gram based on permutation entropy and support vector machine,” Expert
Syst. Appl., vol. 39, no. 1, p. 202–209, 2012.
[72] Y. Kumar, M. L. Dewal, and R. S. Anand, “Epileptic seizures detection
in EEG using DWT-based ApEn and artificial neural network,” Signal
Image Video Process., vol. 8, no. 7, pp. 1323–1334, 2014.
[73] P. Singh, S. D. Joshi, R. K. Patney, and K. saha, “Fourier-based feature
extraction for classification of EEG signals using EEG rhythms,” Circuits
Syst Signal Process, vol. 35, no. 10, pp. 3700–3715, 2016.