↓ Skip to main content

Seizure Prediction and Detection via Phase and Amplitude Lock Values

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
patent
1 patent

Citations

dimensions_citation
69 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
82 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Seizure Prediction and Detection via Phase and Amplitude Lock Values
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, March 2016
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2016.00080
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mark H. Myers, Akshay Padmanabha, Gahangir Hossain, Amy L. de Jongh Curry, Charles D. Blaha

Abstract

A robust seizure prediction methodology would enable a "closed-loop" system that would only activate as impending seizure activity is detected. Such a system would eliminate ongoing stimulation to the brain, thereby eliminating such side effects as coughing, hoarseness, voice alteration, and paresthesias (Murphy et al., 1998; Ben-Menachem, 2001), while preserving overall battery life of the system. The seizure prediction and detection algorithm uses Phase/Amplitude Lock Values (PLV/ALV) which calculate the difference of phase and amplitude between electroencephalogram (EEG) electrodes local and remote to the epileptic event. PLV is used as the seizure prediction marker and signifies the emergence of abnormal neuronal activations through local neuron populations. PLV/ALVs are used as seizure detection markers to demarcate the seizure event, or when the local seizure event has propagated throughout the brain turning into a grand-mal event. We verify the performance of this methodology against the "CHB-MIT Scalp EEG Database" which features seizure attributes for testing. Through this testing, we can demonstrate a high degree of sensivity and precision of our methodology between pre-ictal and ictal events.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 82 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 1%
Unknown 81 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 24%
Student > Master 15 18%
Researcher 10 12%
Student > Postgraduate 7 9%
Student > Bachelor 4 5%
Other 12 15%
Unknown 14 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 24 29%
Neuroscience 11 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 11%
Computer Science 8 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 9%
Other 3 4%
Unknown 20 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 September 2017.
All research outputs
#6,962,128
of 25,466,764 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#2,646
of 7,706 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#90,493
of 314,074 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#50
of 162 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,466,764 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,706 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 314,074 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 162 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.