Open access peer-reviewed chapter

Is EEG a Useful Examination Tool for Diagnosis of Epilepsy and Comorbid Psychiatric Disorders?

By Hideki Azuma

Submitted: June 24th 2020Reviewed: October 6th 2020Published: October 28th 2020

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.94352

Downloaded: 100

Abstract

Diagnosis of epilepsy usually involves interviewing the patients and the individuals who witnessed the seizure. An electroencephalogram (EEG) adds useful information for the diagnosis of epilepsy when epileptic abnormalities emerge. EEG exhibits nonlinearity and weak stationarity. Thus, nonlinear EEG analysis may be useful for clinical application. We examined only about English language studies of nonlinear EEG analysis that compared normal EEG and interictal EEG and reported the accuracy. We identified 60 studies from the public data of Andrzejak 2001 and two studies that did not use the data of Andrzejak 2001. Comorbid psychiatric disorders in patients with epilepsy were not reported in nonlinear EEG analysis except for one case series of comorbid psychotic disorders. Using a variety of feature extraction methods and classifier methods, we concluded that the studies that used the data of Andrzejak 2001 played a valuable role in EEG diagnosis of epilepsy. In the future, according to the evolution of artificial intelligence, deep learning, new nonlinear analysis methods, and the EEG association with the rating scale of the quality of life and psychiatric symptoms, we anticipate that EEG diagnosis of epilepsy, seizures, and comorbid psychiatric disorders in patients with epilepsy will be possible.

Keywords

  • epilepsy
  • EEG
  • diagnosis
  • nonlinear analysis
  • comorbid psychiatric disorders

1. Introduction

1.1 EEG and epilepsy

Epileptic seizures usually do not emerge during the consultation. The diagnosis of epilepsy begins with a conversation with the individual and those who witnessed the seizures. [1] An electroencephalogram (EEG) is also used for the diagnosis of epilepsy. The gold standard for diagnosis of epilepsy is simultaneous ictal EEG recording with video, but this method is not applicable for many patients. The presence of epileptic paroxysmal abnormalities can help with the diagnosis. If a non-expert makes the diagnosis based on EEG findings alone rather than seizure symptoms, misinterpretation of the EEG findings may increase the false-positive diagnosis of epilepsy. Many physicians anticipate that EEG diagnosis for epilepsy will become possible with technological advances, even when no EEG abnormalities are present. EEG is useful not only for diagnosis, but also for monitoring during the course of treatment. [2] Psychiatric disorders occur more frequently as comorbidities in patients with epilepsy [3], and they can affect quality of life. [4]

1.2 EEG and nonlinearity

EEG is characterized by its nonlinearity. [5] Nonlinear dynamics is a concept that includes chaos. Therefore, the adaptation of nonlinear EEG analysis is more useful than that of linear EEG analysis. [6] In nonlinear dynamics, the time series data of EEG can be transformed into a reconstructed state space, which is calculated according to the embedded theorem [7, 8], and the dynamic attractors can be reconstructed. The reconstruction enables us to estimate nonlinear statistics such as fractal dimension and bifurcation structure. The attractor here is a set of trajectories where all of the nearest trajectories converge. [9] CD [9, 10, 11], which is a kind of fractal dimension, is a dimension that is occupied by the attractor in phase space. The method of Grassberger et al. is often used. [10] The lyapunov exponent is the degree of exponential separation between orbits, and measures the extent by which nearby points on an attractor diverge or converge with respect to each other while moving along any trajectory of the attractor. [9, 12] If the largest lyapunov exponent is greater than zero, this shows the presence of deterministic chaos. If the lyapunov exponent is less than or equal to zero, this shows a periodic or quasiperiodic motion, respectively. Furthermore, to show the nonlinearity of EEG, generation of surrogate data with linear characteristics and demonstration of a significant difference between them are necessary. In addition, nonlinear analysis is possible with the assumption that EEG exhibits weak stationarity, that the mean and the variance are normally distributed in the evaluated interval, and that no noise is present. [13]

1.3 Epilepsy and nonlinear EEG analysis

Many studies on the nonlinear analysis of EEG and epilepsy have been reported, including reviews concerning ictal EEG detection and machine leaning approaches. [14, 15, 16] Ideally, interictal EEG with no paroxysmal abnormalities should be used to diagnose epilepsy and comorbid psychiatric disorders by using computerized analysis rather than expert observation and interpretation.

1.4 Objectives in this review

Therefore, in the present review, we investigated the reports on the nonlinear analysis of EEG between normal and epileptic groups, focusing on the diagnosis of epilepsy and comorbid psychiatric disorders.

Advertisement

2. Methods

2.1 Public data set in Andrzejak 2001

A literature search of Scopus and PubMed was performed. In addition, we identified other relevant literature. We selected only about English language reports that compared normal and epilepsy groups. Many reports used data from Andrzejak 2001. [17] They prepared and used five different data sets, A-E, which each contain 100 single channels from EEG segments of 23.6-sec duration. These segments were selected and extracted from continuous multichannel EEG recordings after visual inspection for artifacts, e.g., due to muscle activity or eye movements. Set A and set B consisted of EEGs from five healthy volunteers with eyes open and closed, respectively. Set C and set D consisted of EEGs from five patients in the epileptogenic zone (set D) and from the hippocampal formation of the opposite hemisphere of set D (set C). Set E contains ictal activity. Set A and set B were recorded extracranially, whereas set C, set D, and set E were recorded intracranially.

2.2 Nonlinearity of the data set

The objective of the study by Andrzejak 2001 was examination of nonlinearity. They generated 39 surrogate data points from all EEG segments for nonlinear prediction error and CD according to the weak stationarity assumption. Nonlinearity was found except in set A for nonlinear prediction error, but only in set D and set E for CD. They discussed that they cannot rule out the possibility that the surrogate test compared to the surrogate data with linear properties including the weak stationarity may result in a false-positive rejection of nonstationarity, and that the surrogate test has neither high sensitivity nor specificity for nonstationarity in nonlinear dynamics systems. [17] Thuraisingham reexamined the data using MPR complexity and normalized shanon spectral entropy, taking into account the probability distribution function. [18] He carried out a surrogate test using the Amplitude Adjusted Fourier Transform method to generate 1000 surrogate data points for evaluation of entropy and complexity. The degree of nonlinearity was set E > set D > set C > set B > set A. However, when adjusted for the effect of noise, all data showed the same degree of nonlinearity by the above method. Set A showed more nonlinearity than set B, and Thuraisingham concluded that denoising with a wavelet was effective for nonlinearity. In light of these results, we considered all five EEG sets as nonlinear and examined the difference between the normal EEG and interictal EEG among the five EEG sets. There were many studies on the comparison between other sets vs. set E. However, an expert can easily interpret set E as ictal. The diagnosis of epilepsy from interictal EEG with no paroxysmal abnormalities is meaningful for both specialists and non-specialists. Therefore, in this review, in the studies with explicit comparisons with the data set of Andrzejak 2001, A vs. C, A vs. D, AB vs. CD vs. E, A vs. B vs. C vs. D vs. E, B vs. C, B vs. D, A vs. D vs. E, A vs. C vs. E, and AB vs. CD, were examined.

3. Results

3.1 Normal vs. epilepsy

The development of feature extraction with nonlinear analysis methods and machine learning has been reported in studies of various combinations of classifications on EEG diagnosis of epilepsy. (Table 1). [19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79] Table 2 shows the details of the classification. Sixty studies using the Andrzejak 2001 data set were selected, and two studies between normal and epileptic groups were selected. Although set C (the opposite site of the epileptogenic zone) and set D (the site of the epileptogenic zone) were interictal and intracranial EEG, the results for B vs. C (99.3% accuracy) and B vs. D (99.5% accuracy) by Gupta 2018 [29] and the results for A vs. D (100% accuracy) by Kaya 2015 [45] and 2018 [30] and for A vs. C (99.7% and 99.6% accuracy) by Raghu 2017 [36] and Liu 2020 [21] were reported. The feature extraction methods and the classifiers were different in each study. Nevertheless, these results were clinically interesting and reasonable. Gruszczyńska 2019 (86.8% accuracy) reported that interictal Fp1 EEG and normal Fp1 EEG using the feature extraction of RQA and RP were classified by SVM. [80] No detailed descriptions were provided for the focal side. Jacob 2016 (100% accuracy) reported the classification of interictal EEG and normal EEG. [81] However, no detailed description was provided of EEGs that were artifact free or with no paroxysmal abnormalities.

Author (year) [reference number]Feature extractionClassifiersComparisons [accuracy%]
Gao (2020) [19]ApEn, RQACNN, BRBPAB vs. CDE [99.2]
Goshvarpour (2020) [20]PPKNN, PNNA vs. D vs. E [98.3]
Liu (2020) [21]WPE, WEE, TEE, PSD, 1D-LBP, LNDP, 1D-LGP, LSP, SampEn, LSPA, NEO, HSFV*AB*, NB, DA, KNN, SVMA vs. D vs. E [99.0], AB vs. CD vs. E [98.1], AB vs. CD [99], A vs. D [99.5], A vs. C [98.6], B vs. C [99.6], B vs. D [99.6], A vs. CD [98.8], B vs. CD [99.1]
Abedin (2019) [22]Multilevel DWTNonlinear ANNA vs. D vs. E [97.3]
Fasil (2019) [23]ExpEnSVMA vs. D vs. E [89], A vs. C vs. E [91.6]
Ghayab (2019) [24]TQWTKNN*, SVM, BTAB vs. CD vs. E [100], A vs. B vs. C vs. D vs. E [100]
Kaur (2019) [25]DWTBSVMA vs. C [76], B vs. C [81.6], A vs. D [72.8], B vs. D [71.1]
Sun (2019) [26]ESN, ARELMA vs. D vs. E [98.3]
Torse (2019) [27]RP, RQASVM*, ANN, PNNAB vs. CD vs. E [91.2]
Tuncer (2019) [28]LSPLDA-SVM*, QDA, KNNA vs. D vs. E [98.6], A vs. B vs. C vs. D vs. E [93], A vs. D [99.5]
Gupta (2018) [29]DCT, HE, ARMASVMA vs. C [96.5], A vs. D [98.4], B vs. C [99.3], B vs. D [99.5], AB vs. CD [97.7]
Kaya (2018) [30]1D-TP (1; lower features, 2; upper features)ANN*, RF†, FT‡, SVM, BayesNet1; A vs. D vs. E [95.7], A vs. D [99]*, 2; A vs. D vs. E [94] , A vs. D [100]†,‡,
Sairamya (2018) [31]LNGP†, SWLNGPANN*, KNN, QLDA, SVMA vs. D vs. E [99.7] [99.6] , AB vs. CD vs. E [99.5] [99.3] , A vs. D [99.9] †, [99.9]
Zhang (2018) [32]fDistEn, WPDKNN*, Kruskal-Wallis, nonparametric ANOVAA vs. D vs. E [99.3], A vs. B vs. C vs. D vs. E [76]
Abdulhay (2017) [33]ApEn, SampEn, PE, HE, HFD, HOSKNN, SVM, NBA vs. D vs. E [98.5]
Jaiswal (2017) [34]1D-LBP†, LNDP‡, 1D-LGPANN*, NN, SVM, DTA vs. D vs. E [97.0] [98.2] , A vs. D [99.3] [99.9]
Kalbkhani (2017) [35]ST, KPCANNA vs. D vs. E [99.3], AB vs. CD vs. E [99.5], A vs. C vs. E [99.9]
Raghu (2017) [36]WPD, LEEn*, NERENA vs. C [99.7]*, [99.3]
Tiwari (2017) [37]LBPSVMAB vs. CD vs. E [98.8]
Wang (2017) [38]LDWTNSVMA vs. D vs. E [98.4]
Wen (2017) [39]GAFDS, SampEn, HE, LE, MFDFAKNN*, LDA, DT, AB, MLP, NBA vs. D vs. E [97.3]
Zhang (2017) [40]LMD, RE, HEGASVM*, BPNN, KNN, LDA, SVMAB s CD vs. E [98.4]
Hekim (2016) [41]DWT, EWD, EFD, SEANFISAB vs. CD [96.5]
Murugavel (2016) [42]LLE, ApEn, DWTH-MSVM*, ANNA vs. D vs. E [96], AB vs. CD vs. E [95], A vs. B vs. C vs. D vs. E [94]
Peker (2016) [43]DTCWTCVANNA vs. D vs. E [99.3], AB vs. CD vs. E [98.2]
Abalsaud (2015) [44]DCT, DWTNSC*, ANN, NB, KNN, SVMA vs. C vs. E [90]
Kaya (2015) [45]1D-LBPGRAA vs. D [100]
Martis (2015) [46]DWT, LLE, HFD, HE, SampEnRBFSVM*, LSVM, PSVM, QSVM, DT, KNNA vs. D vs. E [98]*
Riaz (2015) [47]EMDSVM*, DT, KNN, ANNA vs. D vs. E [91], A vs. B vs. C vs. D vs. E [94]
Tawfik (2015) [48]WPE, DWTLSVM*, NSVM, ANNA vs. D vs. E [97.2]* [97.5] , A vs. B vs. C vs. D vs. E [91.6]* [93.7]
Kaya (2014) [49]LBP, 1DLBPBayesNet*, SVM, ANN, LR, FTA vs. D vs. E [95.6], A vs. D [95.5]
Sivasankari (2014) [50]ICA, STFT, CD, LEFFBPNN*, ANFISA vs. D vs. E [100], A vs. B vs. C vs. D vs. E [96.2]
Acharya (2013) [51]CWT, HOS, CM, RLM, LBP, LMESVM*, ANOVA, DT, KNN, PNNAB vs. CD vs. E [96]
Alam (2013) [52]EMDANNA vs. D vs. E [100], AB vs. CD vs. E [80]
Fernández-Blanco (2013) [53]GPA vs. D vs. E [98.5], AB vs. CD vs. E [97.8]
Hosseini (2013) [54]HE, LLEANFISAB vs. CD [97.4]
Niknazar (2013) [55]RQA, DWTECOCAB vs. CD vs. E [98.6]
Peker (2013) [56]FCBFACVANNA vs. D vs. E [97]
Seng (2013) [57]HE, FD, ApEn, LLE, CDRBFSVMAB vs. CD vs. E [97.1]
Wang (2013) [58]BD, FISVMA vs. D vs. E [97.1]
Zhu (2013) [59]SampEnMKM*, KMA, SVMA vs. C [95], A vs. D [96]
Acharya (2012) [60]ApEn, SampEn, FD, HOS, HEFSC*, DT, GMM, KNN, RBFSVM, PNNA vs. D vs. E [99.7]
Acharya (2012–2) [61]DWT(23.6 sec), ICARBFSVM*, DT, KNN, PNN, FSC, GMMA vs. D vs. E [96]
Martis (2012) [62]EMDDT*, ANOVAA vs. D vs. E [95.3]
Acharya (2011) [63]RP, RQASVM*, GMM, FSC, KNN, NB, DT, PNNA vs. D vs. E [94.4]
Guo (2011) [64]DWT, GPKNNA vs. D vs. E [93.5]
Mhandoost (2011) [65]DWTGARCH*, MRFA vs. D vs. E [98.8], A vs. C vs. E [98]
Orhan (2011) [66]DWTMLP-NN*, KMCA vs. D vs. E [96.6]
Ballli (2010) [67]HOA, TRA, ApEn, LLE, CD, NPE, HE, ARSFFS-LDAA vs. B vs. C vs. D vs. E [81.4]
Liang (2010) [68]ApEn, AR, GA, PCARBFSVM*, LLS, LDA, BPNN, LISVMA vs. D vs. E [98.6], A vs. B vs. C vs. D vs. E [85.9]
Song (2010) [69]SmpEnELM*, BPNNA vs. D vs. E [95.6]
Acharya (2009) [70]CD, HE, ApEn, LLEGMM*, SVMAB vs. CD vs. E [95]
Übeyli (2009) [71]DWTMLP + LMA NNA vs. D vs. E [94.8]
Übeyli (2008) [72]DWTME*, EMA, MLP-NNA vs. D vs. E [93.1]
Gūler (2007) [73]DWT, LERBFSVM*, MLP-NN, PNN, MSVMA vs. B vs. C vs. D vs. E [99.2]
Tzallas (2007) [74]STFT, PSDFFANNA vs. D vs. E [100], A vs. B vs. C vs. D vs. E [89]
Tzallas (2007–2) [75]SPWVDFFANN, PCAA vs. D vs. E [99.2], AB vs. CD vs. E [97.7]
Übeyli (2007) [76]PM, MUSIC, MN, PSDMME *, MEA vs. B vs. C vs. D vs. E [98.6]
Sadati (2006) [77]DWTANFN*, ANFIS, RBFSVM, FFBPNNA vs. D vs. E [85.9]
Gūler (2005) [78]LE, LMARNNA vs. D vs. E [96.7]
Gūler (2005–2) [79]DWTANFIS*, BP, GDM, LLSA vs. B vs. C vs. D vs. E [98.6]

Table 1.

Results for the data of Andrzejak 2001.

Accuracy = (TP+ TN)/(TP + FP+ TN+ FN); TP, TN, FP and FN mean true positive, true negative, false positive and false negative, respectively.

*, †, ‡The accuracy corresponds to each feature extraction and classifier with the symbol.

ComparisonsMean(SD) [range]Number of results
A vs. D vs. E96.8(2.9) [85.9–100]44 results in 40 studies
A vs. B vs. C vs. D vs. E92.2(6.7) [76–100]14 results in 13 studies
AB vs. CD vs. E96.3(4.9) [80–100]15 results in 14 studies
A vs. C vs. E94.8(4.1) [90–99.9]4 results in 4 studies
AB vs. CD97.6(0.8) [96.5–99]4 results in 4 studies
A vs. D96.7(7.3) [72.8–100]12 results in 10 studies
A vs. C94.1(8.2) [76–99.7]6 results in 5 studies
B vs. D90.0(13.4) [71.1–99.6]3 results in 3 studies
B vs. C93.5(8.4) [81.6–99.6]3 results in 3 studies

Table 2.

The mean (standard deviation) and number of results for each comparison.

3.2 Comorbid psychiatric disorders

No literature on nonlinear EEG analysis for the diagnosis of comorbid psychiatric disorders with epilepsy has been published, and we only found a case series with nonlinear analysis of comorbid psychiatric symptoms with epilepsy. [82] Azuma reported that EEG was artifact free and had no paroxysmal abnormalities and that patients including controls had uncontrolled seizures before and after psychosis. SampEn may not only decrease in the right frontal and frontal-anterior temporal regions before psychosis, but it may also increase in the frontal and frontal-temporal regions during psychosis. Further reports about prodromal periods are needed. Several studies and reviews about forced normalization have been published [8384], but none have reported nonlinear analysis as well.

4. Discussion

4.1 Normal vs. epilepsy

In studies on Andrzejak 2001 data, comparisons of A or B vs. C and A or B vs. D have increased in recent years (Table 1). Set C and set D consist of intracranial EEG. Usually, intracranial EEG is less noisy, but it provides more localized EEG information. [85, 86] Thus, in the future, comparisons using interictal surface EEG data are needed. This review revealed that the studies in Table 1 using nonlinear feature extraction methods and classifier methods play a valuable role on EEG diagnosis for epilepsy (A or B vs. C (93.8% accuracy) and A or B vs. D (93.4% accuracy). These results can be further examined in future studies. Thus, consideration and examination with denoising with wavelets [18] and the date of EEG and seizures [87] in nonlinear EEG analysis may be needed in future studies.

4.2 Comorbid psychiatric disorders

In many studies on the diagnosis of depression and schizophrenia [88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97], the nonlinear EEG analysis have been reported, but no nonlinear EEG analysis with accuracy has been reported for comorbid psychotic disorders and depression in patients with epilepsy. Psychiatric comorbidities are common in patients with epilepsy [3], and associations for psychosis with the age at onset, duration of epilepsy, and seizure frequency have been reported. [98, 99] Prodromal symptoms should also be considered when evaluating the onset of psychiatric symptoms. [100] Nonlinear EEG analysis of patients with schizophrenia and depression have been reported, but no nonlinear EEG analysis with accuracy has been reported for comorbid psychotic disorders and depression in patients with epilepsy. No study on forced normalization has been reported using nonlinear EEG analysis. Because psychiatric symptoms affect quality of life in patients with epilepsy [4], we expect that the studies of the association between nonlinear EEG analysis, cognitive function [101, 102, 103] and the psychiatric rating scales [104, 105] in the future.

5. Conclusion

EEG exhibits nonlinearity and weak stationarity. Thus, nonlinear EEG analysis is useful to investigate the clinical application for epilepsy, as shown in studies using the public record of Andrzejak 2001. We reviewed the studies using this data set. Using a variety of feature extraction methods and classifier methods, we conclude that these studies played a valuable role in EEG diagnosis for epilepsy. Comorbid psychiatric disorders in patients with epilepsy have not been reported in nonlinear EEG analysis except for one case series of comorbid psychotic disorders. In the future, according to the evolution of artificial intelligence, deep learning, new nonlinear analysis, and the association with the rating scale of the quality of life and psychiatric symptoms, we anticipate that EEG diagnosis for epilepsy, seizures, and comorbid psychiatric disorders in patients with epilepsy will become possible.

Advertisement

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank all of the authors for participating in this review.

Conflict of interest

None of the authors has any conflict of interest to disclose.

Abbreviations

ABAdaBoost
ANFISAdaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system
ANFNAdaptive neural fuzzy network
ANNArtificial Neural Network
ApEnApproximate entropy
ARAutoregressive model
ARMAAutoregressive moving average model
BayesNetBayes networks
BDBlancket dimension
BPBackpropagation
BPNNBack propagation neural network
BRBPBayesian regularization back-propagation
BSVMBagged support vector machine
BTBagging tree
CDCorrelation dimension
CMCo-occurrence matrix
CNNConvolutional neural network
CVANNComplex-valued neural networks
CWPSContinuous wavelet power spectra
CWTContinuous wavelet transform
DADiscriminant analysis
DCTDiscrete cosine transform
DTDecision tree
DTCWTDual-tree complex wavelet transformation
DWPSDiscrete wavelet power spectra
DWTDiscrete wavelet transform
ECOCError-correction output codes
EFDEqual frequency discretization
ELMExtreme learning machine
EMAExpectation–maximization algorithm
EMDEmpirical Mode Decomposition
ENSCEnsemble noise-aware signal combination
ESNEcho state network
EWDEqual width discretization
ExpEnExponential energy
FCBFAFast Correlation Based Filter algorithm
FDFractal dimension
fDistEnFuzzy distribution entropy
FEFuzzy entropy
FFANNFeed-forward artificial neural network
FFBPNNFeed forward back-propagation neural network
FIFractal intercept
FPCAFunctional principal component analysis
FSCFuzzy Sugeno Classifier
FTFunctional trees
GAGenetic algorithm
GAFDSGenetic algorithm-based frequency-domain feature search
GASVMGenetic algorithm support vector machine
GARCHGeneralized autoregressive conditional heteroscedasticity
GDMGradient descent method
GEOGradient energy operator
GMMGaussian mixture model
GPGenetic programming
GRAGray relational analysis
HEHurst exponent
HFDHiguchi fractal dimension
H-MSVMHierarchical multi-class support vector machine
HOAHigher order autocovariance
HOSHigher order spectra
HSFVHybrid-selection-feature vector
ICAIndependent component analysis
ICNCInverse correlation network coupling
IShEIndirect shannon entropy
KMAK-means algorithm
KMCK-means clustering
KNNK-nearest neighbor
KPCAKernel principal component analysis
KSEKolmogorov Sinai entropy
LELyapunov exponent
LBPLocal binary pattern
LEEnLog energy entropy
LDALinear discriminant analysis
LLSLinear least squares
LMALevenberg–marquardt algorithm
LMDLocal mean decomposition
LMELaws mask energy
LNDPLocal neighbor descriptive pattern
LNGPLocal neighbor gradient pattern
LRLogistic regression
LSPLocal speed pattern
LSPLocal senary pattern
LSPALorenz scatter plot area
LS-SVMLast squares support vector machine
LSVMLinear support vector machine
MEMixture of experts
MFDFAMultifractal detrended fluctuation analysis
MKMMulti-scale K-means algorithm
MLPMultilayer perceptron
MMEModified mixture of experts
MNMinimum-Norm
MPEMultiscale permutation entropy
MPErMultiscale permutation renyi entropy
MRFMarkov random field
MSVMMulticlass support vector machine
MUSICMultiple signal classification
NBNaive Bayes
NENorm entropy
NEONonlinear energy operator
NNNearest neighbor
NNNeural network
NPENonlinear prediction error
NSVMNonlinear support vector machine
OCOmega complexity
1D-LBPOne-dimensional local binary pattern
1D-LGPOne-dimensional local gradient pattern
1D-TPOne-dimensional ternary patterns
PCAPrincipal component analysis
PEPermutation entropy
PMPisarenko method
PNNProbabilistic neural network
PPPoincare plot
PSPhase synchrony
PSDPower spectral density
PSVMPolynominal support vector machine
QDAQuadratic discriminant analysis
QLDAQuadratic linear discriminant analysis
QSVMQuadratic support vector machine
RBFSVMRadial basis function support vector machine
RERenyi entropy
RENRecurrent elman neural network
RFRandom trees
RLMRun length matrix
RNNRecurrent neural network
RPRecurrence plots
RQARecurrence quantification analysis
SampEnSample entropy
SEShannon entropy
SELMSparse extreme learning machine
SFFS-LDASequential floating forward search with linear discriminant analysis method
SLMCSpatial linear mode complexity
SSEShannon spectral entropy
STStockwell transform
STFTShort time fourier transform
SPWVDSmoothed pseudo-wigner-ville distribution
SVMSupport vector machine
SWLNGPSymmetrically weighted local neighbor gradient pattern
TEETemporal energy entropy
TQWTTunable Q-factor wavelet transform
TRATime reversal asymmetry
VGAVisibility graph algorithm
WEEWavelet energy entropy
WPEWavelet packet energy
WPEWeighted permutation Entropy
WPDWavelet packet decomposition

© 2020 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

How to cite and reference

Link to this chapter Copy to clipboard

Cite this chapter Copy to clipboard

Hideki Azuma (October 28th 2020). Is EEG a Useful Examination Tool for Diagnosis of Epilepsy and Comorbid Psychiatric Disorders?, Epilepsy - Update on Classification, Etiologies, Instrumental Diagnosis and Treatment, Sandro Misciagna, IntechOpen, DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.94352. Available from:

chapter statistics

100total chapter downloads

More statistics for editors and authors

Login to your personal dashboard for more detailed statistics on your publications.

Access personal reporting

Related Content

This Book

Next chapter

EEG Signal Denoising Using Haar Transform and Maximal Overlap Discrete Wavelet Transform (MODWT) for the Finding of Epilepsy

By Sasikumar Gurumoorthy, Naresh Babu Muppalaneni and G. Sandhya Kumari

Related Book

First chapter

Implementation of TOF-PET Systems on Advanced Reconfigurable Logic Devices

By J. Torres, R. García, A. Aguilar, J. Soret, J. Martos, A.J. González, F. Sánchez, J.M. Benlloch and M.J. Rodríguez

We are IntechOpen, the world's leading publisher of Open Access books. Built by scientists, for scientists. Our readership spans scientists, professors, researchers, librarians, and students, as well as business professionals. We share our knowledge and peer-reveiwed research papers with libraries, scientific and engineering societies, and also work with corporate R&D departments and government entities.

More About Us