PhD Oral Defense

ARTIFACT CHARACTERIZATION, DETECTION

AND REMOVAL FROM NEURAL SIGNALS

Presented By:
Md Kafiul Islam
(A0080155M)

Supervisor: Dr. Zhi Yang

Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering

National University of Singapore

28th Oct, 2015

 Outline
• Background
• Problems and Motivation
• Thesis Objectives
• Literature Review
• Presentation of Thesis Contributions
– Artifact Study on in-vivo neural data
– Proposed Artifact Removal Algorithms
• In-Vivo Neural Signals
• EEG for Seizure Detection and BCI
• Summary Contributions
• Future Work
Presented By Md Kafiul Islam
2
(kafiul_islam@u.nus.edu)
Background-1: In-Vivo Neural Signals Single-multi unit

Extra-cellular In-Vivo Neural Recordings

 Invasive brain recording technique
 To Investigate brain information processing & data
storage
 Better Spatio-temporal resolution and SNR than non-
invasive brain recordings.
 Study of both LFP & Spikes along with their
correlation: more insight on how brain works.

• Local Field Potentials (LFP) (0.1-200 Hz) 3000

LFP
2000

– Population activity from many neurons 1000

• Neural Action potentials /Spikes (300-5000 Hz)

-1000

-2000

–
-3000

Activity of individual Neurons 600

8.8 9 9.2
Spike
9.4 9.6 9.8 10

x 10
5

400

200
s
0

-200

-400

-600

-800

Presented By Md Kafiul Islam

-1000

-1200
3
(kafiul_islam@u.nus.edu)
-1400
1.083 1.0835 1.084 1.0845
6
x 10
 Background-2: EEG and its Characteristics
EEG is the recording of the brain's spontaneous electrical activity over a period of time by
placing flat metal discs (electrodes) attached to the scalp.
• EEG Rhythms
• Transients
Scalp EEG is Most popular and widely
used brain recording technique
1) Low-cost
2) Non-invasive
3) Easy to use
4) fine temporal resolution

Typical Scalp EEG B.W.:

0.05Hz – 128 Hz

Gamma

Presented By Md Kafiul Islam

4
(kafiul_islam@u.nus.edu)
 Motivation-1
Artifacts are unwanted signals originated from non-neural
source
 Recordings corrupted by artifacts, especially in less constrained
environment.
 Cause mistakes in interpretation of neural information.
 Artifacts need to be identified and removed for reliable data
analysis.
 The challenges for in-vivo artifact identification compare to EEG
artifacts are:
 No prior knowledge about artifacts unlike EEG-artifacts
 The broad frequency band of in-vivo data (0.1 Hz – 5 kHz)
makes it difficult to separate artifacts from signal
 Existing artifact removal methods are intended for EEG, So can’t be
applied directly

Artifacts
Presented By Md Kafiul Islam
5
(kafiul_islam@u.nus.edu)
 Motivation-2
1) Epilepsy Monitoring by EEG
Purpose:
• 2% World Population Suffer from Epilepsy Seizure
• Diagnosis/Detection of Epilepsy Seizure by Long-term
EEG Monitoring (up to 72 hours)
• Early warning of seizures (prediction) onset in order to
stop seizure
• Offline processing of epilepsy patient data
An epileptic seizure is a brief episode of signs or
Challenges: symptoms due to abnormal excessive or
• Seizure masked by artifacts Lead to misdiagnosis synchronous neuronal activity in the brain.
• False alarms

2) EEG based BCI

Purpose:
• Neural prostheses
• Enabling people with injury/brain disease to
communicate with real world
Challenges:
• Less accuracy in BCI classification in presence
BCI is a direct link between human brain and an external
of Artifacts => Leads to Unintentional control of BCI
computerized device bypassing the injured/diseased pathway
device 6
 Problems with Artifacts 2
x 10
-3

• Can cause electronics saturation [1]

1.5

1
[1]
0.5

• High dynamic range required (Higher ENOB in ADC) [2]

V oltage , V
0

-0.5

• Mislead to spike detection (high freq) [3]

-1

-1.5

•
-2

Misinterpretation for LFP recording(low freq) [4]

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
Time Sample x 10
5

-4
x 10

• Increase false alarms in epileptic seizure detection [5] 5

•
0

Mistakes in BCI classifications

Voltage, Volt
-5
x 10
-5 Local Fie ld Potential

x 10 After BPF of In Vivo data from 300 Hz to 5 kHz

4

1
5
-10
[2]
0.5
-15
0
Voltage, Volt

0 260 265 270 275 280 285 290 295

Time, Second
Voltage, Volt

-5
-0.5

-1 -10 [4] [5]

-1.5 [3] -15

-2 False Spike detection

9.06 9.08 9.1 9.12 9.14 9.16 9.18 9.2
Time, Second x 10
4
-2.5
260 265 270 275 280 285 290 295 300
Time, Second

Common Target: Detect and remove artifacts

as much as possible without distorting signal of interest.

Presented By Md Kafiul Islam

7
(kafiul_islam@u.nus.edu)
Objectives
Thesis Objectives:
• To investigate artifacts present at in-vivo neural recordings: characterize them and observe
the change in dynamic range.

• To propose an automated artifact detection and removal algorithm for reliably remove
artifacts from in-vivo neural recordings without distorting signal of interest

• To synthesize an artifact database for quantitative performance evaluation of any artifact

removal method.

• To propose application-specific artifact removal methods for scalp EEG recordings

• Epilepsy seizure monitoring and detection purpose
• BCI studies/experiment purpose

• To observe the after-effect of artifact removal on later-stage neural signal processing. i.e.
• Improvement in neural spike detection (in-vivo)
• Improvement in epileptic seizure detection (EEG)
• Improvement in BCI classification (EEG)
Presented By Md Kafiul Islam
8
(kafiul_islam@u.nus.edu)
 Literature Review
(No literature particularly on artifacts for in-vivo neural signals)
EEG Artifact Handling:
1) Avoidance 2) Detection 3) Rejection 4) Removal

Existing Methods
 Blind Source Separation
- ICA, CCA
- Offline and manual intervention, at best semi-automatic,
suitable for global artifacts BSS
- Assumptions to be independent or un-correlated
- Convergence problem for ICA
- Residual neural signals
 Filtering/Regression
- Adaptive filtering
Adaptive Filter
- Reference channel to record artifact/clean data)
 Time Series Analysis
- STFT
- uniform time-freq resolution
- Wavelet Denoising
- Choices of threshold, mother wavelet and decomposition level, DWT
 Empirical Technique
- HHT, e.g. EMD or EEMD (Computational complexity higher, slow)
 Hybrid Methods
- Wavelet-enhanced ICA/CCA, EEMD-ICA/CCA
- Identification of artifactual component is a tough job, DWT involved,
EEMD requires high computation power 9
Summery of Existing EEG Artifact Removal Methods

– Not suitable for in-vivo neural data

– Single artifact type
– Reference channel (EOG, eye tracker, ECG, gyroscope, accelerometer, etc.)
– Mostly general purpose
– Often Manual or Semi-automatic
– Often suitable for Multi channel
– Real-time/Online processing capability
– Not enough quantitative evaluation
– Often after-effects not reported
– Lack of adequate dataset used
– Often hybrid methods (wICA, EEMD-CCA, etc.)
Presented By Md Kafiul Islam
10
(kafiul_islam@u.nus.edu)
 Artifact Sources
Artifacts may generate from 3 general factors :
i) Environmental factors (e.g. power noise, sound/optical interference, EM-coupling
from earth, etc.)
ii) Experiment factors (e.g. electrode position altering, connecting wire
movement, etc. due to mainly subject motion )
iii) Physiological factors (e.g. EOG, ECG, EMG, etc.)

Presented By Md Kafiul Islam

11
(kafiul_islam@u.nus.edu)
In-Vivo Artifacts

Artifact Characterization
Global Artifacts
5 5

0 0

-5 -5
ch 1 ch 2
-10 -10
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
5 5

0
Signal Amplitude, mV

0
-5
ch 3 ch 4
-10 -5
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
5 2

0
0
-2

-5
ch 5
-4
ch 6
Irregular/Local Artifacts Periodic Artifacts
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10

2 2

0
0
-2
ch 7
-2
ch 8 4-Types of Artifacts
-4
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
Time, Sec

Perspective Artifact Category/Class

Repeatability Irregular/No Periodic/Regular/Yes

Origin Internal External

Appearance Local Global

(Identified by Empirical Observations Based on Real Neural

Sequence, there could be many other types as well)
Presented By Md Kafiul Islam
(kafiul_islam@u.nus.edu) 12
In-Vivo Artifacts

Properties of Artifacts
(Comparison in Spectral Domain with Neural Signal of Interest)
LFP => 0.1 Hz ~ 200 Hz, 0.1 ~ 1 mVpp
Neural Spikes => 300 Hz ~ 5 kHz, 40 ~ 500 uVpp
Artifacts => 0 ~ 10 kHz or even higher, max amplitude as high as 20 mVpp. (From real
data observation)

2 Possible bands for Artifact

Detection
1) 150-400 Hz (BPF)
2) >5 kHz (HPF)

Presented By Md Kafiul Islam

13
(kafiul_islam@u.nus.edu)
In-Vivo Artifacts
Dynamic Range Study
Subject No of Data Amplifier Circuit DR without DR with Increase in DR DR without DR with Increase in
Noise Floor Artifact Artifact DR
(Fs in kHz) Sequences Artifact (Full Spectrum Artifact
(µV rms) (Mean ± SD) Data in dB) (Mean ± SD) (Spike Data
B.W. (Data Length (Mean ± SD) (Mean ± SD) in dB)
in min) (Full Spectrum Data (Spike Data in
in dB) (Full Spectrum Data dB) (Spike Data in
in dB) dB)
Rat 134
Hippocampus
(15) 1 69.01 ± 2.10 82.44 ± 4.21 13.43 59.21 ± 4.32 78.35 ± 19.14
(40)
8.26
0.1 Hz – 10 kHz
Human 64
Epilepsy
(18) 1 34.45 ± 3.42 64.36 ± 3.42 29.90 28.82 ± 55.75 ± 26.92
(32.5)
4.605 6.94
0.5 Hz – 9 kHz
90
Full Spectrum Data with T2 art
Spike Data with T2 art
85
Full Spectrum Data with T1 art
Spike Data with T1 art
80 Full Spectrum Data with T3 art
Spike Data with T3 art
75
Dynamic Range, dB

70
Full Spectrum DR
65 Without Artifact

60

55

50
Spike DR
Without Artifact
45

40 Presented By Md Kafiul Islam

0 5 10 15 14
Artifact Amplitude, mV (kafiul_islam@u.nus.edu)
 Algorithm Design-1: Artifact Detection and Removal
from In-Vivo Neural Data
Purpose of Algorithm
 Minimum (or almost no) distortion to neural signal
 Remove artifacts as much as possible
 Should be automatic
 Robustness is important
 Should work in both single and multi-channel analysis
 Should not depend on artifact types.

Approach to design algorithm:

• Use of Spectral Char. of In-Vivo Neural Signal: Potential regions for artifact detection are
– BPF: 150-400 Hz (Least LFP and Spike Power)
– HPF: >5 kHz (Noise floor)
• Stationary Wavelet Transform for decomposing neural data (multi-resolution analysis)
– ‘Haar’ as mother wavelet (simplest and useful to track sharp/transition changes in signal)
– 10-level decomposition (depends on Fs)
– Improved/Modified typical threshold value
– Garrote threshold

Presented By Md Kafiul Islam

15
(kafiul_islam@u.nus.edu)
 About Wavelet Transform (A Multi-resolution Analysis)
• Split Up the Signal into a Bunch of Signals
• Representing the Same Signal, but all Corresponding to Different Frequency Bands
• Only Providing What Frequency Bands Exists at What Time Intervals

1 * t   
CWTx , s   x , s    x t     dt
s  s 
Translation
(The location of Scale
the window) Mother Wavelet
Scale S>1: dilate the signal
Wavelet S<1: compress the signal
Small wave
Means the window function is of finite length
Mother Wavelet
 A prototype for generating the other window
functions
 All the used windows are its dilated or
compressed and shifted versions

Presented By Md Kafiul Islam

16
(kafiul_islam@u.nus.edu)
 Why Wavelet Transform:

 Good time-frequency resolution

 Can work with non-stationary signals, e.g. neural signal
 Easy to implement [complexity: DWT-> O(N); FFT -> O(N log2 N);N->
length of signal]
 Can work for both single and multi-channel recordings
 Most importantly it can be used for both detection (from decomposed
coefficient) and removal (thresholding and reconstruction) of artifacts.
Digital implementation of SWT:
A 3 level SWT filter bank and SWT filters
Why SWT Preferred over DWT or CWT?

 Usually DWT or SWT is preferred over CWT when signal synthesis is required
 CWT is very slow and generates way too much of data.
 SWT is translation invariant where DWT is not. So better reconstruction result (No loss of
information, preserves spike data and doesn’t generate any spike-like artifacts).
 Choice of mother wavelets for CWT is limited.
 SWT implementation complexity [O(N L)] is in between DWT [O(N)] and CWT [O(N L log2N)].
N = length of signal, L = decomposition level

Presented By Md Kafiul Islam

17
(kafiul_islam@u.nus.edu)
 Proposed Algorithm-1 (In-Vivo Data)

Raw Artifactual
Artifact-free
Neural Data
Neural Data

Detection Stage

Presented By Md Kafiul Islam

18
(kafiul_islam@u.nus.edu)
 Results to Support “Why SWT” ?
Spike data comparison after artifact removal
5

Ref
-5
DWT
Original Spike
Original Spike CWT
(True Positive)
(True Positive) SWT

Normalized Amplitude
-10
FPR 15
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

10

-5

False Spike Original Spike False Spike

-10 (False Positive)
(False Positive) (True Positive)

-15
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Time Sample

TP = # True Positives (Hit)

FP = # False Positives (False Alarm)
TN = # True Negatives (Correct Rejection)
FN = # False Negatives (Misdetection)

Presented By Md Kafiul Islam

19
(kafiul_islam@u.nus.edu)
 Effect of Filtering
– Separate spikes from artifacts
ROC for Spike Detection

0.9

0.8 SWT + Filtering

Only
Real Data from Monkey Front Cortex
0.7
500
0.6
0

TPR
0.5

-500 0.4
Original

-1000 0.3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
0.2
500
0.1

0
Amplitude

Reconstructed 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
-500
FPR
by only SWT

-1000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

500

-500 Reconstructed by
SWT + Filtering
-1000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Time, Sec

Presented By Md Kafiul Islam

20
(kafiul_islam@u.nus.edu)
 Threshold Value
• Universal Threshold:

Wi = Wavelet coefficients; ơi = variance of Wi; N = length of signal

• Modified Threshold: k = kA for approx. coef.

kD for detail coef.

By empirical observation from

signal histogram
5 < m < infinite
2<n<3

D3, D4, D5, D6 => Spikes.

D8, D9, D10 and A10 => LFP

Presented By Md Kafiul Islam

21
(kafiul_islam@u.nus.edu)
 Choice of Threshold Function (Garrote)
• Hard: Discontinuous which may produce large variance (very sensitive to small changes
in the input data)
• Soft: Continuous but has larger bias in the estimated signal (results in larger errors)
• Garrote: Less sensitive to input change, lower bias and more importantly continuous.
Hard Soft Garrote

Presented By Md Kafiul Islam

22
(kafiul_islam@u.nus.edu)
Data Synthesis for Simulation

Presented By Md Kafiul Islam

23
(kafiul_islam@u.nus.edu)
 Performance Evaluation
(Important Definitions)
x(n) = Reference signal
Simulation is performed on both real and synthesized x’(n) = Reconstructed signal
(semi-simulated) signal database from different y(n) = Artifactual signal
subjects. e1(n) = error between x & y
Removal Measurement e2(n) = error between x & x’
 Lambda, λ: Amount of artifact reduction Rref = auto-correlation of reference
signal
 ΔSNR: Improvement in signal to noise (artifact) ratio Rrec = cross-correlation between
reference and reconstructed signal
Rart = cross-correlation between
reference and artifactual signal

Distortion Measurement Tart = Time duration of artifact

 RMSE: Root mean square error Ttotal = Total data length

Artifact SNR:
Consider artifact as signal and neural
signal as noise:
 Spectral Distortion:

Presented By Md Kafiul Islam

24
(kafiul_islam@u.nus.edu)
Results (Tested on Synthesized Sequence)

SNDR Improvement

Presented By Md Kafiul Islam

25
(kafiul_islam@u.nus.edu)
 Results
(Tested on Real Sequence)
Data Sample 1: Rat Hippocampus

Data Sample 2: Rat Hippocampus

Recorded vs Reconstructed (Before & After Artifact Removal)

4
Reconstructed
Recorded
2

Signal Amplitude, mV
-2

-4

-6

-8
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Time Sample 5
x 10

Presented By Md Kafiul Islam

26
(kafiul_islam@u.nus.edu)
Quantitative Evaluation

Amount of Distortion
Measurement

Amount of Artifact Removal

Measurement

Presented By Md Kafiul Islam

27
(kafiul_islam@u.nus.edu)
Comparison with Other Methods
In terms of Performance Metrics

In terms of Spike Detection Improvement

Presented By Md Kafiul Islam

28
(kafiul_islam@u.nus.edu)
 Algorithm Design-2: Artifact Detection and Removal
from EEG for Epilepsy Seizure Monitoring

Challenges: 3 Signal components to differentiate:

1) EEG Rhythms
2) Artifacts and
3) Seizure Events

Approach:
• Utilizing Seizure activities’ spectral band into consideration
– 0.5-29 Hz (HPF at 30 Hz gives non-seizure events)
• A Reference Seizure epoch (either real or simulated) is matched to double check
whether artifact or seizure
• Epoch-by-epoch processing
– Determination of epoch length is crucial
• SWT based denoising
– 8-level decomposition
– Similar threshold value modification

Presented By Md Kafiul Islam

29
(kafiul_islam@u.nus.edu)
 Proposed Algorithm-2
(For EEG-based Seizure Detection)

Presented By Md Kafiul Islam

30
(kafiul_islam@u.nus.edu)
 Methods
Data Collection
• Real epilepsy patient data from CHB-MIT database
• Simple EEG experiments performed for recording particular artifact(s)
• Eye blink/ Eye movement
• Chewing/Swallowing
• Head/Hand Movement
Seizure Detection Flow

Signal Synthesis

Presented By Md Kafiul Islam

31
(kafiul_islam@u.nus.edu)
Qualitative Results Simulated Data

Real data

6 Artifact
Types
(Zoom-in)

Presented By Md Kafiul Islam

32
(kafiul_islam@u.nus.edu)
 Improvement in Seizure Detection

False alarms improvement

Presented By Md Kafiul Islam

33
(kafiul_islam@u.nus.edu)
 Improvement in Seizure Detection (Cont…)
EEG Features before and after Artifact Removal

Features Extracted:
(i) Entropy (ii) Kurtosis (iii) Line Length (iv) Peak
(v) NEO (vi) Variance (vii) FFT (viii) FFT Peak

Note: The features between seizure and non-seizure data are more separable after artifact removal which
suggests that it increases the detection rate and minimizes false alarms (false alarms are due to artifacts).

Presented By Md Kafiul Islam

34
(kafiul_islam@u.nus.edu)
 Algorithm Design-3: Artifact Detection and Removal from
EEG for BCI

Scalp EEG-based BCI is the most widely used BCI studies

1. P300 ERP (Event Related Potential)
2. MI (Motor Imaginary)
3. SSVEP (Steady-state Visual Evoked Potential)

Challenges
Difficult to avoid artifacts during BCI experiments

Approaches
– Unique idea of Artifact Probability Mapping
– Epoch by epoch processing
– SWT-based denoising
– Consideration of type of BCI to utilize desired signal band(s) for artifact
identification.

Presented By Md Kafiul Islam

35
(kafiul_islam@u.nus.edu)
Proposed Algorithm-3
(For EEG-based BCI)
Entropy -> Randomness
Kurtosis -> Peakedness
Skewness -> Symmetry
Periodic waveform index (PWI) -> Periodicity

Denoise Based on
type of BCI Study

Presented By Md Kafiul Islam

36
(kafiul_islam@u.nus.edu)
 Methods
Data Collection
• BCI Competition-IV EEG dataset-1/2a/2b
• Simple EEG experiments performed for recording particular artifact(s)
• Eye blink/ Eye movement
• Chewing/Swallowing
• Head/Hand Movement
BCI Classification Flow (MI study)
Feature
BCILAB Tool used for BCI Performance Evaluation Artifact Extraction LDA
Removal (Windowed Classifier
Means)

Signal Synthesis

Presented By Md Kafiul Islam

37
(kafiul_islam@u.nus.edu)
Qualitative Results
Real data

Simulated data

Presented By Md Kafiul Islam

38
(kafiul_islam@u.nus.edu)
 Quantitative Results

BCI Performance Improvement

SNDR Improvement

Presented By Md Kafiul Islam

39
(kafiul_islam@u.nus.edu)
 Comparison of Current EEG Artifact Removal Techniques With
Proposed Ones

Performance Metrics Value

Computational Time

EEG Artifact Removal for Seizure Detection EEG Artifact Removal for BCI
40
 Summary of Contributions
• Investigation on In-Vivo Neural Artifacts (for the very First
Time)
– Identifying artifact sources
– Characterizing them in to 4 types
– Studied change in dynamic range

• Artifact Database Synthesis

– Allowing realistic artifact simulation in real clean neural signals
– Quantitative performance evaluation becomes possible

• Unique Artifact Probability Mapping

– Gives user the freedom to select probability threshold
– Applicable to other EEG applications

Presented By Md Kafiul Islam

41
(kafiul_islam@u.nus.edu)
 Summary of Contributions (Cont..)
• Proposed 3 different artifact removal algorithms (First time
for in-vivo neural data)
– Almost no distortion to neural signal of interest
– Doesn’t depend on artifact types
– Application specific solution
– Can work for both single and multi-channel neural data
– Parameters can be optimized for best performance
– Straightforward parameter adjustment.
– Automatic algorithm / Minimal manual intervention (during initial training
parameters)
– Suitable for both online and offline processing
– Unique idea of artifacts probability mapping for EEG epochs
– All three algorithms’ performances have been evaluated both qualitatively and
quantitatively.
– Compared with other existing competing methods and ours found to be
superior
– Open source codes available for everyone to use and edit for further
improvement(s).
– Reproducible research
Presented By Md Kafiul Islam
42
(kafiul_islam@u.nus.edu)
 Future Directions-1
Improvements on Current Algorithms
1) In-Vivo Neural Data
– Complexity reduction and Optimizing the algorithm further to allow faster
processing and less storage.

– Automatic Parameter Adaptation

– Proceed to hardware implementation and perform real-time experiments to

verify the actual performance in practice.

2) EEG Applications
– Online Processing
– Validation with Patient/User Data
– Further Optimization and Tuning

Presented By Md Kafiul Islam

43
(kafiul_islam@u.nus.edu)
 Future Directions-2
Other Potential Applications
1) Other Neural Signals
– Artifact removal from ECOG/iEEG and sub-scalp EEG data epilepsy seizure
monitoring
– Motion artifact removal in ambulatory EEG monitoring
– Artifact removal from Peripheral nerve recordings for neural prostheses
applications
– Metallic interferences/artifact removal from MEG
– Stimulation artifact removal during DBS
2) Non-Neural Biomedical Signals
– Artifact removal from ambulatory ECG or PCG for wearable healthcare monitoring
applications

3) Software GUI for Complete Solution

– Signal-specific artifact removal
» EEG, iEEG, in-vivo, sub-scalp EEG, etc.
– Application-specific artifact removal
» Epilepsy, BCI, Sleep studies, Alzheimer diagnosis, Mental fatigue & depression
studies, etc.

Presented By Md Kafiul Islam

44
(kafiul_islam@u.nus.edu)
 Conclusion
• First time (to best of knowledge) Investigation of
artifacts for in-vivo neural data
– Useful for future neuroscience studies
• Application-specific EEG artifact removal
– Enhanced later-stage signal processing performance
• Open Artifact database and MATLABT source codes
– Reproducible research by continuing and improving current
algorithms
– More reliable performance evaluation of any artifact removal
methods
• Future brain research and clinical applications may find
our work useful.
Presented By Md Kafiul Islam
45
(kafiul_islam@u.nus.edu)
 Acknowledgments

I would like to thank

– My supervisor for his helps, encouragements and support.
– My thesis committee for invaluable comments during my
QE and on my thesis.
– My lab mate Jules, Xu Jian, Zhou Yin, and Reza for their
help and support
– Dr Amir Rastegarnia for his feedback and help on my
papers and thesis
– All my friends and colleagues in VLSI Lab for making a nice
working environment.
– All my friends who have helped and encouraged me during
my PhD course.
46
 Publications
Published/In-Press (Journal):
1. M. K. Islam, A. Rastegarnia, A. T. Nguyen, and Z. Yang, “Artifact Characterization and Removal for In- Vivo Neural Recording,” Journal
of Neuroscience Methods, vol. 226, no. 0, pp. 110 – 123, 2014. (Chapter-2 + Chapter-4)

2. M. K. Islam, A. Rastegarnia, and Z. Yang, “A Wavelet-Based Artifact Reduction from Scalp EEG for Epileptic Seizure Detection”,
Published online (In Press) in IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics, 2015. (Chapter-5)

3. Jian Xu, Menglian Zhao, Xiaobo Wu, Md. Kafiul Islam, and Zhi Yang, “A High Performance Delta-Sigma Modulator for Neurosensing”
– Sensors 2015, 15(8), 19466-19486; doi:10.3390/s150819466. (Chapter-2)

In-Preparation/Submitted (Journal):
1. M. K. Islam, A. Khalili, and Z. Yang, “Probability Mapping based Artifact Detection and Wavelet Denoising based Artifact Removal from
Scalp EEG for Brain-Computer Interface (BCI) Applications,” In Preparation for submission to Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 2015.
(Chapter-6)

2. M. K. Islam, and Z. Yang, “Artifact Characterization, Detection and Removal from Scalp EEG - A Review,” In Preparation for submission to
IEEE Reviews in Biomedical Engineering, 2015. (Chapter-3)

3. M. K. Islam, and Z. Yang, “Unsupervised Selection of Mother Wavelet and Parameter Optimization during Wavelet Denoising Based
Artifact Removal from EEG Signal” – Submitted to the Journal of Signal Processing Systems, Springer, 2015. (Chapter-5)

Published (Conference):
1. Islam MK, Tuan NA, Zhou Y, and Yang Z. “Analysis and processing of in vivo neural signal for artifact detection and removal”. In:
BMEI – 5th International Conference on Biomedical Engineering and Informatics; 2012. p. 437–42. (Chapter-2 and Chapter-3)

1. Xu, J., Islam, M. K., Wang, S., and Yang, Z. “A 13µW 87dB dynamic range implantable ΔΣ modulator for full-spectrum neural
recording”. In Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC), 2013 35th Annual International Conference of the IEEE (pp. 2764-
2767). IEEE. (Chapter-2)
Presented By Md Kafiul Islam
47
(kafiul_islam@u.nus.edu)
 The End

Q&A
Thank You


Presented By Md Kafiul Islam
48
(kafiul_islam@u.nus.edu)