Int. J. Mach. Learn. & Cyber.
(2019) 10:311–323
DOI 10.1007/s13042-017-0716-2
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
A novel framework based on biclustering for automatic epileptic
seizure detection
Qin Lin1   · Shuqun Ye1 · Cuihong Wu1 · Wencheng Gu1 · Jiaqian Wang1 ·
Huai‑Ling Zhang1 · Yun Xue2 
Received: 28 November 2016 / Accepted: 16 August 2017 / Published online: 2 September 2017
© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017
Abstract  Automatic epileptic seizure detection based on
electroencephalogram is crucial to epilepsy diagnosis and
treatment. However, the large numbers of time series make it
quite challenging to establish a high performance automatic
detection method. Considering different physiological states
of the brain could be characterized by distinct combinations
or interactions of similar discontinuous local temporal pat-
terns, a novel framework based on biclustering for automatic
epileptic seizure detection is proposed in this paper. First,
the CC algorithm is used to identify similar discontinuous
local temporal patterns. Then, the bicluster membership
matrix using a new similarity measurement is constructed
to reduce the dimensionality. At last, the ELM classifier is
adopted to discriminate between epileptic seizure and sei-
zure-free EEG signals. With extensive comparative stud-
ies and evaluations on the publicly available Bonn epileptic
EEG dataset, it indicates that the proposed framework could
not only automatically detect or predict an epilepsy seizure
with high performances with respect to accuracy, robustness
and efficiency, but also implicitly provide valuable knowl-
edge for studying the mechanisms of epilepsy.
* Huai‑Ling Zhang
huailing@163.com
* Yun Xue
xueyun@scnu.edu.cn
1
School of Information Engineering, Guangdong Medical
University, Dongguan 523808, China
2
School of Physics and Telecommunication Engineering,
South China Normal University, Guangzhou 510006, China
Keywords  Electroencephalogram (EEG) time series
data · Epilepsy seizures · Biclustering · Extreme learning
machine(ELM) · Feature extraction · Unsupervised feature
learning
1 Introduction
Epilepsy is the second highest risk disease in the nervous
system, behind only the disease of heart head blood-vessel
[1]. According to incomplete statistics of the World Health
Organization, there is about 0.5–1.5% of the world popula-
tion suffering from epilepsy [2]. Due to side effects induced
by the treatment, mental disorder or brain damage associated
with seizures, social phobia and social discrimination [3],
frequent epileptic seizures severely affect patients’ physi-
cal and psychological health and their life quality. Worse
still, family or caregivers members of these patients also
have been experiencing a lot of financial or psychological
difficulties. As a main biological signal of the brain electri-
cal activities, electroencephalogram (EEG) provides better
physiological and pathological information than other meth-
ods that used for diagnosing brain disorder and studying of
brain function. Thus it plays an important role in epilepsy
diagnosis and treatment [4]. The accurate detection of epi-
lepsy based on EEG is an important step for assisting the
diagnosis and treatment, such as medications and surgery.
However, conventional manual seizure detections are always
tedious and time-consuming. Furthermore, their prediction
performances are also badly influenced by the presence of
myogenic artifacts. Therefore, developing a high perfor-
mance automatic seizure detection method for epilepsy sei-
zures is clinically desirable and an important task.
However, a major challenge faced by automatic seizure
detection methods is how to extract discriminative features
13
Vol.:(0123456789)

312
from epileptic EEG signals. That is because the dimension
of the epileptic EEG signals is increasingly high owing to
the rapidly increasing number of channels (electrodes) and
sampling frequencies. Various feature extraction methods
have been developed from different points of view. Most of
these existing methods broadly fit into four categories: time
domain analysis, frequency domain analysis, time–frequency
domain analysis and non-linear methods. Among them, time
domain analysis and frequency domain analysis are two
simple and classical methods. The time domain analysis
method mainly analyzes the intuitively geometric proper-
ties of EEG signals such as statistical features of amplitudes
[5], rhythmic, cyclical patterns [6] and so forth, while the
frequency domain analysis method is mainly based on the
power spectrum and coefficient of each frequency band in
the EEG signals [7]. Nevertheless, the aforementioned two
methods impose the underlying hypothesis of the stationarity
or linearity of the signals, which is quite inconsistent with
the non-stationary and non-linear nature of EEG signals. In
contrast, discrete wavelet transform could provide a more
flexible representation of signals in time–frequency domain
to capture and localize transient features like the epileptic
spikes [8].Recently, other methods based on nonlinear the-
ory also have been successfully utilized for seizure detection,
including largest lyapunov exponent (LLE) [9], correlation
dimension (CD) [10], entropies [11] and empirical mode
decomposition (EMD) [12], and so on.
Despite of these great efforts, most of those methods sel-
dom consider the interior relationship between EEG sam-
ples and time series. Since physiological states of the brain
could be characterized by distinct combinations of the basic
EEG rhythms [13], clustering algorithms such as k-means
clustering [14], self-organizing maps (SOM) [15] and fuzzy
c-means (FCM) algorithm [16] were used to characterize
and detect different EEG states. These traditional cluster-
ing algorithms partition EEG samples into a set of clus-
ters based on the similarity distribution among all the time
series. However, an EEG state could very often be defined
by only a portion of time series dominated by one rhythm,
a particular mixture or alternation of rhythms, or the fre-
quent appearance of isolated events [13]. Meanwhile, there
is considerable individual variability in characteristics of
different EEG signals [17]. In other words, conventional
one-way clustering algorithms obtain global patterns rather
than local ones, failing to finely identify similar discontinu-
ous local temporal patterns. Fortunately, recent biclustering
algorithms [18] provide an effective approach to overcome
this limitation through simultaneously clustering on both
samples and attributes. Most importantly, biclustering algo-
rithms also have been extended to supervised biclustering
based classifiers by incorporating class labels [19–21]. The
major application of these methods is to establish connec-
tions between disease symptoms and correlated local gene
13
Int. J. Mach. Learn. & Cyber. (2019) 10:311–323
expression patterns. Apart from DNA microarray applica-
tions, Stanislav et al. presented a pilot study of applying
consistent biclustering to analyze scalp EEG data [22]. How-
ever, a literature survey leaves us with the impression that
biclustering algorithms have not been exhaustively investi-
gated for automatic epileptic seizure detection.
Motivated by above factors, a novel framework based on
biclustering for automatic epileptic seizure detection is pro-
posed in this paper. Firstly, we adopt the CC algorithm [18]
to identify homogenous subgroups of EEG signals that con-
sistently fluctuate over a subset of discontinuous time series.
Then we further construct a bicluster membership matrix to
perform dimensionality reduction. Finally, extreme learn-
ing machine (ELM) [23] is utilized to discriminate between
epileptic seizure and seizure-free EEG signals. The main
contribution of our framework lies in threefold:
1. We propose a novel framework based on biclustering
for automatic epileptic seizure detection. Distinguished
from most of state-of-the-art methods, our framework
utilizes the bicluster membership matrix to characterize
the interior relationship between EEG samples and time
series so that it could better characterize the dynamics
changes of different brain bioelectrical states. This will
further enhance prediction accuracy.
2. A new similarity measurement based on the mean
squared residue (MSR) is developed to construct biclus-
ter membership matrix. Compared with binary simi-
larity measurement it could represent a more precise
relationship between signals and biclusters rather than
simply indicate whether a signal belongs to a bicluster
or not.
3. Except for focusing on the general performances in
terms of the prediction accuracy, robustness and effi-
ciency, our framework could not only implicitly dis-
cover a small number of discriminative EEG samples
and time series but also characterize the local interaction
patterns between them, which might be useful to reveal
the mechanism of epilepsy.
To the best of our knowledge, only a few works have been
done on the complete application of the biclustering algo-
rithms to EEG data for automatic epileptic seizure detection.
Particularly, investigating the important parameters of the
CC algorithm and suitable classifier to achieve a high per-
formance framework, this paper might be an early feasible
work on applying biclustering to automatic epileptic seizure
detection. Eventually, experimental results demonstrate that
that the proposed framework could not only automatically
detect or predict an epilepsy seizure with high performances
with respect to accuracy, robustness and efficiency, but also
implicitly provide valuable knowledge for studying the
mechanisms of epilepsy.
Int. J. Mach. Learn. & Cyber. (2019) 10:311–323 313
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Sec-
tion 2 elaborates the structure of the proposed framework
and related methods. Experiment results and discussion of
the proposed framework are presented in Sect. 3. Finally,
Sect. 4 draws a conclusion of the paper and introduces our
future works.
2 Methodology
As depicted in Fig. 1, the procedure of utilizing the frame-
work for the detection of epileptic seizures includes three
interrelated parts. Firstly, the CC algorithm is used to iden-
tify similar discontinuous local temporal patterns whose
homogenous EEG signals consistently fluctuate over a subset
of discontinuous time series. Then, the bicluster member-
ship matrix, which represents the degree of the similarity
between signals and biclusters, is constructed to reduce the
dimensionality. At last, the ELM classifier is adopted to dis-
criminate between epileptic seizure and seizure-free EEG
signals. In this step, all training samples with their labels
(seizure or seizure-free) are fed into ELM to train a classi-
fier, Once a classifier is completely trained, those unlabeled
data samples could be predicted by this classifier. Hence, we
could take the advantages of this framework to automatically
detect and predict when and whether an epileptic seizure
occurs.
2.1 CC algorithm
2.1.1 The basic idea of biclustering
Biclustering, also known as co-clustering, subspace clus-
tering, or block clustering, is a new branch of clustering
methods. Its original idea of simultaneous clustering both
rows and columns was put forward by Hartigan [24] in
1972. However, until the year 2000, Cheng and Church [18]
first applied it in gene expression data analysis. Instead of
clustering on genes or conditions separately, biclustering
clusters on genes and conditions simultaneously so that it
can discover groups of genes co-expressed or co-regulated
t1 . . . tn t1 . . . tn
S1 S1
Bk
. . B1
. .
B2
. .
t1 . . .
St St tn
. -
St+1 St+1
. 0.06 . . . 0.09
. .
. 0.06 .
. .
. .
Sm Sm
Data acquisition Identify Biclusters
Fig. 1  Procedure of utilizing the framework for the detection of epileptic seizures
under a small fraction of experimental conditions. Thus, it
overcomes the disadvantage of the conventional one-way
clustering. Thereafter, a series of excellent biclustering
algorithms were proposed, including OPSM [25] and Plaid
Models [26]. In addition, biclustering also has been suc-
cessfully introduced into other high-dimensional application
fields, such as text mining [27], market segmentation [28],
recommendation system [29], financial forecasting [30], and
collaborative filtering [31].
According to the type of biclusters the algorithm is able
to find, Madeira and Oliveira [32] divided biclustering algo-
rithms into four major classes: (1) Biclusters with constant
values; (2) Biclusters with constant values in rows or col-
umns; (3) Biclusters with coherent values; (4) Biclusters
with coherent evolutions. Figure 2 presents typical exam-
ples of these four classes of biclusters. As we can see in
Fig. 2, different classes of biclutering algorithms have their
own characteristics and are suitable for identifying different
types of biclusters. Therefore, when finding or developing
a proper biclustering algorithm for a specific problem, it
is crucial to take the type of biclusters into serious con-
sideration. For instance, the Bimax algorithm presented by
Prelić et al. [33] can identify biclusters with constant values,
while SAMBA(Statistical Algorithmic Method for Bicluster
Analysis, SAMBA) proposed by Tanay et al. [34] is suited
to find out biclusters with coherent evolutions.
2.1.2 CC algorithm
This paper focuses on developing a framework based on biclus-
tering for automatic epileptic seizure detection. The first and
utmost step is to identify a set of local temporal patterns which
are sufficient to characterize different brain states. In general,
a collection of EEG signals are stored as a numerical matrix
where rows denote EEG samples and columns represent time
series. Therefore, it is important that the algorithm selected or
developed can deal with the numerical data. Furthermore, we
assume that different brain states could be characterized by
distinct combinations or interactions of local temporal patterns
whose homogenous EEG signals consistently fluctuate over
a subset of discontinuous time series. Hence, an algorithm
B1 . . . Bk
+
S1 0.1 . . . 0. 2
. .
. .
Label
. . . .
. .
. .
St 0.78 . . . 0.07
St+1
+
. Label
. . 0.90
. . . .
. .
. . . .
. .
Sm . . .
. .
0.56 . . . 0.85 0.56 . . . 0.85 -
Construct Bicluster
Train and predict
Membership
13

314 Int. J. Mach. Learn. & Cyber. (2019) 10:311–323

                   

                   

                   

                   

(a) Constant bicluster (b) Constant rows (c) Coherent values-additive (d) Contant columns (e) Coherent values-multiplicative

6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6    

6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6    

6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6    

6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6    

(f) Overall coherent evolution (g) Coherent evolution-rows (h) Coherent evolution-columns (i) Coherent evolution on the (j) Coherent sign changes on rows
columns and columns

Fig. 2  Examples of different types of biclusters

should be selected or developed on the condition that homog- aiJ , aIj, aIJ represents the means of row, column and sub-
enous subgroups of samples with consistent fluctuation over a matrix, respectively. A submatrix AIJ refers to a δ-bicluster,
subset of attributes can be identified from the original matrix. when H(I, J) ⩽ 𝛿 for some 𝛿 ⩾ 0.
The CC algorithm introduced by Cheng and Church [18] is Since the problem of finding the best δ-bicluster is NP
suitable to identify such type of local temporal patterns, for it hard, the CC algorithm is performed in a heuristic greedy
discovers submatrices from a numerical matrix where samples fashion by iteratively updating rows and columns [18]. The
have consistent fluctuation over related attributes. More pre- procedure mainly contains three phases. In the first phase,
cisely, its mathematical model of the biclusters is defined by the algorithm starts with the whole matrix for which it
a MSR score function. The lower MSR the bicluster has, the calculates the initial MSR H . Then it deletes a number of
more consistently its samples would fluctuate over its attrib- rows and columns quickly with MSR H ′ > 𝛼H , where 𝛼 is
utes. The specific model and procedure of the CC algorithm a threshold for multiple node deletion. In the second phase,
are described as follows. it deletes rows or columns one by one to achieve a more
Let a dataset with m rows and n columns be given as a elaborate decrease of the MSR. Finally, in the sense that
m × nreal data matrix A = (aij )m×n, where aij is the value of some rows and columns may be added without increasing
the ith row at the jth column. Define the row and column the MSR, a node addition phase is performed to obtain a
indices of Am×n as X = {1, 2, … , m} and Y = {1, 2, … , n} better result. The algorithm terminates when there is not a
. A submatrix is an indexed set of entries B = (I, J), where possible move to increase the size of the candidate bicluster
I = {1, 2, … , k} ⊆ X and J = {1, 2, … , l} ⊆ Y . The MSR can without exceeding the MSR threshold 𝛿. Once a bicluster is
be formulated by identified, the algorithm masks the elements corresponding
to the identified bicluster with random values, then iterates
1 ∑ the same procedure to search for other biclusters.
H(I, J) = (a − aiJ − aIj + aIJ )2 (1)
|I||J| i∈I,j∈J ij
2.2 Constructing the bicluster membership matrix
where
When a set of significant biclusters are identified, most of
1 ∑ 1 ∑ biclustering based classifiers [19–21] employ a bicluster
aiJ = aij , aIj = a (2)
|J| j∈J |I| i∈I ij membership matrix to construct the relationship between
each sample and these biclusters. This process reduces the
dimensionality by mapping a large number of attributes to
∑ 1 ∑ 1 ∑
aIJ =
1
aij = aiJ = a a small number of identified biclusters. During this process,
|I||J| i∈I,j∈J |I| i∈I |J| j∈J Ij (3)
binary similarity measurement that indicates if a sample
belongs to a bicluster or not is frequently used to compute
the bicluster membership matrix. However, because different

13
Int. J. Mach. Learn. & Cyber. (2019) 10:311–323 315

types of biclusters may differ significantly, it is insufficient have been used as one of the most important linear approaches
and inflexible for binary similarity measurement to reflect for classifying epileptic EEG signals due to its powerful ability
the degree of the similarity between each sample and dif- in discriminating complex nonlinear biological signals. Nev-
ferent types of biclusters. In other words, the similarity ertheless, most of the traditional ANNs learning algorithms,
measurement should be developed based on the type of the like the back propagation (BP) algorithm, are prone to fall into
identified biclustes. In the view of this problem, a new simi- a local optimum. Besides, their learning speed is too low [23].
larity measurement based on MSR is introduced to compute As another nonlinear method, support vector machine (SVM)
the bicluster membership matrix. To be more specific, let has a relatively strong generalization capability, especially for
Q = (qij )m×k be a bicluster membership matrix,{ and denote} small EEG datasets. Thus, it has been successfully employed
the collection of identified{biclusters as B} = b1 , b2 , … , bk to differentiate between epileptic seizure and seizure-free EEG
and EEG samples as S = s1 , s2 , … , sm . Hence, the func- signals [37]. But the high computing complexity of SVM [23]
tion can be formulated by: makes it inefficient to handle with the enlarging EEG data-
[ � � ( )] [ � � ( )]
( ) |H(Ij , Jj ) − H Ij , Jj | − Min |H(Ij , Jj ) − H Ij , Jj |
qij = Sim si , bj = [ ( )] [ ( )] (4)
Max |H(Ij , Jj ) − H Ij , Jj | − Min |H(Ij , Jj ) − H Ij , Jj |
� � � �

where Ij and Jj are the set of row and column of the jth sets. Unlike ANNs and SVM classifiers, k-Nearest Neighbour
bicluster bj, respectively. Ij and Jj are the set of rows and (kNN) [38] is a relatively fast nonlinear classifier for classify-
′ ′

columns of the jth bicluster bj adding or deleting the ith ing EEG signals. Whereas the performance of the kNN classi-
sample si, respectively. The element qij is the element of Q fier is heavily depend on the parameter k. As an emergent tech-
which represents similarity between the ith sample and the nology, ELM [23, 39] is a kind of learning algorithm of single
jth bicluster. The function expresses the normalized devia- hidden layer feed forward neural networks (SLFN). Its input
tion between the MSR of the bicluster bj and the MSR of bj weights and biases of the hidden layer can be chosen randomly
adding or deleting the sample si. The greater the value of the and output weights can be determined analytically. Hence, it
function (namely the larger qij), the smaller the similarity not only achieves a better generalization performance, but also
between the sample si and the bicluster bj. An example of improves the learning speed greatly. It has attracted increasing
bicluster membership matrix is given in Table 1. attention and become widely acceptable in the detection of
epileptic seizures [11, 40]. In this paper, ELM is adopted as a
2.3 Extreme learning machine classifier in our presented framework. {( )}N
Given N arbitrary training samples 𝐱j , 𝐭j j=1, where
Classification is another challenge for automatic epileptic [ ]T
𝐱j = [ xj1 , xj2 , ⋯ , xjn] ∈ Rn is the jth sample and
seizures detection, for there are still considerable overlaps T
𝐭j = tj1 , tj2 , ⋯ , tjm ∈ Rmdenotes the label of 𝐱j , a standard
between epileptic seizure and seizure-free EEG signals after
SLFN with L hidden nodes can be mathematical formulated
dimensionality reduction. In the last two decades, many clas-
as
sification methods have been developed for the classification
of epileptic EEG signals. Naive bayesian (NB) classifier [35], ∑
L
( )
a famous linear classifiers based on probability distributions, is 𝛃i g 𝐰i ⋅ 𝐱j + bi = 𝐨j , j = 1, 2, … , N (5)
frequently utilized to classify epileptic EEG signals. However, i=1
the main limitation of the NB classifier is that the posterior [ ]T
where 𝐰i = wi1 , wi2 , … , win represents the input weights
probabilities are usually difficult to be determined directly
connecting
[ the input] neurons and the ith hidden neuron,
[36]. In recent years, artificial neural networks (ANNs) [14] T
𝛃i = 𝛽i1 , 𝛽i2 , … , 𝛽im represents the output weights con-
necting the output neurons and the ith hidden neuron, bi is
the bias of the ith hidden neuron, 𝐨j is the output of the jth
Table 1  The bicluster sample. g(⋅) can be Sigmoid or RBF, or even other non-
b1 b2 … bj … bk
membership matrixQ differentiable activation functions.
s1 q11 q12 … q1j … q1k
{( If the )}NSLFN approaches these ∑NN arbitrary
� �
samples
s2 q21 q22 … q2j … q2k 𝐱j , 𝐭j j=1 with zero error, that is j=1 �𝐨j − 𝐭j � = 0, the
� �
… … … … … … …
formula (5) can be written as
si qi1 qi2 … qij … qik
… … … … … … … 𝐇𝛃 = 𝐓 (6)
sm qm1 qm2 … qmj … qmk where

13

316 Int. J. Mach. Learn. & Cyber. (2019) 10:311–323

� �
𝐇 𝐰1 , … , 𝐰L , b1 , … , bL , 𝐱1 , … , 𝐱L Start
� � � �
⎡ g 𝐰1 ⋅ 𝐱1 + b1 ⋯ g 𝐰L ⋅ 𝐱1 + bL ⎤
(7)
= ⎢ ⋮� � ⋱ ⋮� �⎥
⎥ Input EEG signals
⎢
⎣ g 𝐰1 ⋅ 𝐱N + b1 ⋯ g 𝐰L ⋅ 𝐱N + bL ⎦N×L Dmensionality
reduction

Find biclusters

⎡ 𝛃T1 ⎤ ⎡ t1T ⎤ Construct bicluster

membership
Bicluster membership
features
𝛃 = ⎢⋮ ⎥ , T = ⎢⋮ ⎥ (8) (Testing datasets)
⎢ T ⎥ ⎢ T ⎥
⎣ 𝛃L ⎦L×m ⎣ tL ⎦N×m Bicluster membership
features + labels (Training
datasets)
where 𝐇 refers to the hidden layer output matrix of the Optimum
Train ELM calssifiers Online prediction
SLFN. parameters

According to Huang et al. [23], given a arbitrarily small Offline training

Output class labels: Normal,
value 𝜀 > 0, if the hidden layer activation function of the Interictal or Ictical

SLFN is infinitely differentiable, and the number of hid- Online prediction

den neurons satisfies L ⩽ N , the input weights and hidden End

layer biases can be chosen at random, after that, the SLFN
approaches the N training samples with 𝜀 error, that is to say,
|𝐇 𝛃 | Fig. 3  The flowchart of using the proposed framework in real-time
| N×L L×m − 𝐓N×m | ⩽ 𝜀. In this case, the problem of training epileptic seizures detection
a SLFN is similar to solve the linear system optimization
question, which is illustrated by
EEG signals are divided into training sets and testing sets
‖ ( ) ‖ which are, respectively, applied in the latter two stages.
‖𝐇 𝐰1 , … , 𝐰L , b1 , … , bL 𝛃̂ − 𝐓‖
‖ ‖ In the beginning, we use the CC algorithm to find biclus-
‖ ( ) ‖ (9)
= min ‖𝐇 𝐰1 , … , 𝐰L , b1 , … , bL 𝛃 − 𝐓‖ ters within training datasets (without class labels) and testing
𝛃 ‖ ‖
datasets, then construct the bicluster membership to achieve
dimensionality reduction. In the offline training stage,
The smallest norm least squares solution of the above
bicluster membership features corresponding to training sets
linear system is
coupled with their class labels are used to train the ELM
𝛃̂ = 𝐇† 𝐓 (10) classifier to determine the optimum classifier parameters for
online real-time prediction. In the online real-time predic-
where 𝐇 is the Moore–Penrose generalized inverse of
†
tion stage, bicluster membership features corresponding to
H. Finally, for unlabeled data samples, ELM achieves the
testing datasets are fed into the trained ELM classifier so
smallest square training error and the greatest generaliza-
that the class labels of the testing datasets could be predicted
tion ability.
eventually.
The algorithm of ELM is outlined as follows:

1. Choose random values for input weights 𝐰i and the

biases bi of hidden layer nodes.
3 Experiments
2. Calculate the hidden layer output matrix 𝐇.
There are six parts of experiments in this section. Firstly, two
3. Calculate the output weight 𝛃̂ = 𝐇† 𝐓.
important parameters 𝛿 and 𝛼 are investigated for achieving
desirable performances. Then, to select a suitable classifier
for the proposed framework, we conduct a comparative study
2.4 The flowchart of using the proposed framework
among five different classifiers including Extreme Learn-
in real‑time epileptic seizures detection
ing Machine (ELM), K-Nearest Neighbor (KNN), Support
Vector Machine (SVM), Back Propagation Neural Network
In this subsection, we will illustrate the detail work flow of
(BPNN) and Naive Bayes (NP). Thirdly, we compare the
utilizing our proposed framework for real-time epileptic sei-
proposed framework using different types of similarity
zures prediction with a flowchart depicted in Fig. 3. Similar
measurement to verify the effectiveness of the proposed
to other online real-time epileptic seizures prediction sys-
similarity measurement. Fourthly, performance comparison
tems, there are three main stages: dimensionality reduction,
of the proposed framework using CC algorithm and k-means
offline training and online prediction. Correspondingly, the
algorithm is carried out to testify the superiority of CC

13
Int. J. Mach. Learn. & Cyber. (2019) 10:311–323 317

algorithm as a dimensionality reduction method. Fifthly, we
evaluate the overall performance of the proposed framework
and compare it with other state-of-the-art detection methods
in the literatures. Finally, we further analyze characteristics
of the identified biclusters to explore more meticulous rela-
tionship between the EEG samples and related time series.
The epileptic EEG time series used in the following
experiments are from Department of Epileptology, Bonn
University, Germany. The dataset are publicly available
online [41], and widely used as a benchmark dataset. The
whole dataset consists of five subsets (A–E). Each subset
contains 100 single-channel EEG signals, each with duration
of 3.2 s. All the signals were selected and cut from continu-
ous multi-channel EEG recording after visual inspection for
artifacts, caused by the muscle activities or eye movements,
etc. Sets A and B were recorded from five healthy volunteers
in relaxed and awake state with eyes open (Set A) and eyes
closed (Set B) using the standard international 10–20 system
for surface EEG recording. However, for Sets C, D, and E,
five epileptic patients were chosen for pre-surgical evalua-
tion of epilepsy by using intracranial electrodes. Electrodes
were implanted symmetrically for recording EEG signals
from epileptogenic zone (Set D) and the hippocampal for-
mation of opposite hemisphere of the brain (Set C). The
Set E was taken from all recording sites exhibiting the ictal
activity. Namely, Sets C and D contain interictal intervals
whereas Set E includes the ictal activity. All EEG signals
were recorded within 128-channel amplifier system with an
average common reference with a sampling rate of 173.6 Hz.
Therefore, each signal has a length of 4097 time series. In
order to assess the performance, five binary classification
tasks are performed to discriminate from Sets A and E, Sets
B and E, Sets C and E, Sets D and E, Sets A and D, respec-
tively. In each binary classification task, 95% of datasets is
selected randomly as training sets, while the remaining as
testing sets. In addition, all the experiments are performed
in MatlabR2013a platform.
investigated to achieve desirable performances of the pro-
posed framework in terms of accuracy and efficiency.
3.1.1 Experiments for the optimal value of 𝛿
When the value of 𝛿 is larger than 3 or less than 0.5, the
recognition performance of the proposed framework will
decrease sharply. Hence, we run the proposed framework
on Sets A and E with the value of 𝛿 varying from 0.5 to 3 to
pick up the optimal value of 𝛿. To compare the discriminat-
ing capability of the proposed framework with different val-
ues of 𝛿, the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve is
used. Figure 4 displays six ROC curves of averaged results
of ten detections with the value of 𝛿 varying from 0.5 to 3.
From Fig. 4, it is obvious that the area under ROC curve
(AUC) obtained at 𝛿 = 1.5 is the largest with the value of
0.9200. Therefore, the optimal value of 𝛿 could be set as 1.5.
3.1.2 Experiments for the optimal value of𝛼
In order to find the optimal value of 𝛼, two parts of experi-
ments are carried out on Sets A and E using the proposed
framework with the value of 𝛼 varying from 1.0 to 2.5.
Because the value of 𝛼 is mainly related to the efficiency
of the proposed framework, we study the relationship
between the value of 𝛼 and executing time to determine
the relatively optimal interval of 𝛼 preliminarily. Then, we
pick up the optimal value of 𝛼 with the highest recognition
accuracy in the following experiment.
As shown in Fig. 5, with the increase of the value of 𝛼,
the executing time goes up gradually. More precisely, in the
1
0.9

0.8
3.1 Experiments for important parameters
0.7

To make better use of the CC algorithm for the proposed 0.6

Sensitivity

framework, there are two important parameters 𝛿 and 𝛼 0.5

needed to be tuned manually. Since the parameter 𝛿 is closely
0.4
related to the coherence of the identified biclusters, it has a δ=0.5,AUC=0.8400
δ=1.0,AUC=0.8667
great influence on the prediction performance of the pro- 0.3
δ=1.5,AUC=0.9200
posed framework. In principle, the smaller the value of 𝛿, the 0.2
δ=2.0,AUC=0.8333
more coherent of the identified biclusters. However, if the δ=2.5,AUC=0.8933
δ=3.0,AUC=0.8000
value is too small to obtain the sufficient number of the iden- 0.1
Reference Line
tified biclusters, a great amount of useful information would 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
be lost. In addition, the parameter 𝛼 has a strong relationship 1-Specificity
to the executing time of the CC algorithm, thus affecting
the performances of the proposed framework. Therefore, Fig. 4  ROC curves for the proposed framework with different values
two important parameters 𝛿 and 𝛼 of the CC algorithm are of 𝛿

13

318 Int. J. Mach. Learn. & Cyber. (2019) 10:311–323

100 1000 80
ELM
95 900
95 KNN
90 800 SVM
60

Recognition error rate(%)

85 700 BP
NB classifier
50
Accuracy(%)

80 600

Time(s)
75 500 40

70 400
30
65 300
20
60 200
Accuracy(%) 10
55 100
Time(s)
50 0 0
1 1.5 2 2.5 Average Task I Task II Task III Task IV Task V
α

Fig. 6  The ten-fold cross validation error rate for the proposed

Fig. 5  Executing time and accuracy for the proposed framework with framework aided with five classifiers
different values of 𝛼 when 𝛿 = 1.5

Table 3  Comparison of execution time for the proposed framework

beginning, the executing time increases slowly with the value aided with five classifiers
of 𝛼 ranging from 1.1 to 1.2. However, when the value of 𝛼
Classifier ELM KNN SVM BPNN Naive Bayes
changes from 1.2 to 1.5, the executing time rises steeply.
After that, the executing time increases slowly and smoothly. Time (s) 0.0081 0.0339 0.0214 1.5877 0.0418
Hence the optimal interval of 𝛼 is set as [1.0, 1.5] preliminar-
ily. Furthermore, Table 2 shows results of averaged accura-
cies of ten detections with different value of 𝛼. From Table 2, Table 3. It can be seen from Table 3, the average execution
we can clearly see that the best recognition accuracy of the time of the proposed framework aided with ELM is only
proposed framework is obtained when 𝛼 = 1.0 from the inter- 0.0081 s, which is far less than others. Thus, we can come
val [1.0, 1.5]. To express results more intuitive, results of to a conclusion that the overall performance of ELM is
Table 2 are attached to Fig. 5. Therefore, we can sum up that superior to other classifiers.
1.0 is the optimal value of 𝛼, for the higher performance can
be achieved with least execution time and highest accuracy.
3.3 Performance comparison of the proposed
framework using different types of similarity
3.2 Experiments for the suitable classifier measurement

In order to select a classifier with high accuracy and good
efficiency, we run the proposed framework with ELM, NB
BP, SVM, and kNN to classify EEG signals in five binary
classification tasks. Besides, the value of k in kNN is set as
10, while the SVM type is nu-support vector classification
(nu-SVC). Figure 6 shows the ten-fold cross validation
error rates obtained by the proposed framework aided with
five classifiers. As seen from Fig. 6, the validation error
rates obtained by the proposed framework aided with ELM
is less than others in all the classification tasks, especially
for Task V. Furthermore, we also compare the average
executing times of the proposed framework aided with five
classifiers in all classification tasks. Results are shown in
To verify the effectiveness of the proposed similarity
measurement, we compare its performance with binary
similarity measurement in five classification tasks. Fig-
ure 7 presents a histogram that shows averaged accura-
cies of ten detections using these two types of similarity
measurements. As we expected, results obtained by the
proposed similarity measurement have obvious advantage
over the binary similarity measurement. The reason might
be that the proposed similarity measurement could better
characterize the degree of the relationship between EEG
signals and identified biclusters than the binary similarity
measurement.

Table 2  Average accuracy for the proposed framework with different values of 𝛼 when 𝛿 = 1.5
𝛼 values 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.5

Accuracy (%) 95.00 87.00 85.00 88.00 89.00 84.00 85.00 89.00 83.00 87.00 83.00 87.00

13
Int. J. Mach. Learn. & Cyber. (2019) 10:311–323 319

Fig. 7  A comparison of 100

performance for the proposed
framework using two types of
80
similarity measurements

60

Accuracy(%)
40

20

0
Task I Task II Task III Task IV Task V

Binary similarity measurement Proposed similarity measurement

Fig. 8  A comparison of 100

performance for the proposed
framework using two types
80
of dimensionality reduction
algorithms
60
Accuracy(%)

40

20

0
Task I Task II Task III Task IV Task V

Kmeas algorithm CC algorithm

3.4 Performance comparison of the proposed Table 4  Performance analysis for the proposed framework

framework using CC algorithm and k‑means Different tasks Sensitivity (%) Specificity (%) Accuracy (%)
algorithm
Task I 100.00 100.00 100.00
Both of biclustering and traditional one-way clustering Task II 100.00 100.00 100.00
such as k-means algorithm and FCM algorithm can be Task III 100.00 100.00 100.00
used in our proposed framework to achieve dimensional- Task IV 100.00 100.00 100.00
ity reduction. To evaluate the performance of these two Task V 83.33 100.00 90.00
types of dimensionality reduction methods, we conduct Average 96.67 100.00 98.00
a comparison of the proposed framework using CC algo-
rithm and k-means algorithm. Figure 8 depictsa histogram
that shows averaged accuracies of ten detections obtained 3.5 Performance evaluation of our proposed
by these two dimensionality reduction algorithms. From framework
Fig. 8, we can see that the comprehensive manifestation
of CC algorithm has obvious and significant advantages In this subsection, we firstly evaluate the performance of
over k-means algorithm. our proposed framework in terms of the highest recognition
accuracy and robustness, then further compare it with other
state-of-the-art detection methods.
Table 4 displays the highest recognition sensitivities,
specificities, accuracies of different classification tasks

13

320 Int. J. Mach. Learn. & Cyber. (2019) 10:311–323

obtained by the proposed framework. As listed in Table 4, 3.6 Biclusters characteristics

the highest sensitivity, specificity, recognition accuracy of
the proposed framework can reach 100%, except for Task
V. The reason why the highest accuracy of classification
Task V is not so satisfactory might be that EEG datasets
from Sets A and D are more similar to each other.
By utilizing the ten-fold cross validation, we further
assess the robustness of the proposed framework in five
classification tasks. Results are given in Table 5. From
Table  5, the proposed framework obtained an average
recognition accuracy of 93.20%, which shows the good
robustness of the proposed framework.
Finally, a performance comparison of prediction accu-
racy obtained by the proposed framework and state-of-the-
art detection methods is shown in Table 6. As presented
in Table  6, we can notice that the prediction accuracy
(100.00%) of the proposed framework on Sets A and E is
the best presented, whose differences range from 0 to 5.5%
compared with results of other methods.
Therefore, we conclude that our proposed framework
has relatively high performances in terms of the pre-
diction accuracy and robustness, which could provide a
machine-based clinical diagnostic and therapeutic support
for the clinicians in improving the healthcare outcome for
epilepsy.
The previous sections focus on evaluating the general per-
formance of the proposed framework. In this section, we
further analyze characteristics of identified biclusters to
mine more meticulous and interesting information.
In the classification task on Sets A and E, 20 biclusters
are identified by our proposed framework, whose statistics
information is listed in Table 7. From Table 7, the total num-
bers of EEG samples (total: 53) and time series (total: 57) in
the 20 biclusters are far less than those of original EEG sam-
ples (total: 200) and time series (total: 4097), especially for
time series. Moreover, Fig. 9 presents a histogram that shows
the distributions of the number of EEG samples and time
series appeared in each bicluster. Notice that almost all of
the biclusters involve a small number of EEG samples (aver-
age 2.65) and small number of time series (average 2.85). It
implies that our proposed framework could not only implic-
itly discover a small number of discriminative EEG samples
and time series, but also characterize the local interaction
patterns between them. Figure 10 shows four examples of
similar discontinuous local temporal patterns (biclusters), in
which homogenous EEG signals consistently fluctuate over a
subset of discontinuous time series. Further studies of these
local interaction patterns might provide a novel approach to
disclose the mechanism of epilepsy.

Table 5  Recognition accuracy Different pairs Accuracy (%)

of the ten-fold cross-validation
for the proposed method Table 7  The statistics information of the 20 obtained biclusters
Task I 97.00 ± 2.20
Task II 96.00 ± 2.40 Raw data Total num- Average Maxi- Mini-
Task III 93.00 ± 3.20 ber number mum mum
value value
Task IV 94.00 ± 4.00
Task V 86.00 ± 6.20 Samples 200 53 2.65 4 2
Average 93.20 ± 3.60 Time series 4097 57 2.85 4 2

Table 6  The performance Authors Years Method Accuracy (%)

comparison between our
proposed framework and other Jahankhani et al. [42] 2006 Wavelet-neural networks 98.00
methods from the literatures
Polat et al. [43] 2007 Decision tree classifier-FFT 98.72
Guo et al. [44] 2009 Wavelet-artificial neural networks 95.00
Chandaka et al. [45] 2009 Cross-correlation aided SVM classifier 95.96
Ubeyli [46] 2010 Model based methods-LS-SVM 99.56
Pachori et al. [47] 2014 EMD + SODP and MLPNN classifier 97.75
Jie Xiang et al. [48] 2015 Fuzzy entropy aided SVM classifier 100.00
Jiang-Ling Song et al. [49] 2015 FF-ELM-SD method 97.53
Qin Lin et al. 2016 Our proposed framework 100.00

13
Int. J. Mach. Learn. & Cyber. (2019) 10:311–323 321

Fig. 9  Histogram showing 4.5

the numbers of time series and Time series
samples in each bicluster 4
Samples

3.5

2.5

Number
2

1.5

0.5

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Bicluster ID

40 80
S117 S109
30 S121 60 S140
S135 S166
Amplitude(microvolt)
Amplitude(microvolt)

20
40
10
20
0
0
-10
-20
-20
-40
-30 3846 3847 3848
196 2295 2296
Time series
Time series

(a) Bicluster ID 1 (b) Bicluster ID 2

20
S176 60
10 S112
S182
40 S136
S183
0 S138
Amplitude(microvolt)

20
Amplitude(microvolt)

-10 S177
0
-20 -20
-30 -40
-40 -60
-50 -80

-60 -100
2645 2988 3845 3846 2989 2990 3845
Time series Time series
(c) Bicluster ID 3 (d) Bicluster ID 5

Fig. 10  Four examples of similar discontinuous local temporal patterns (biclusters)

13

322
4 Conclusion
A novel framework based on biclustering for automatic
epileptic seizure detection is proposed in this paper. The
underlying idea of the proposed framework relies on the
hypotheses that different brain states could be characterized
by distinct combinations or interactions of local temporal
patterns whose homogenous EEG signals consistently fluc-
tuate over a subset of discontinuous time series. Further-
more, these local temporal patterns could form the basis for
predicting the epilepsy seizure. To this end, the CC algo-
rithm is employed in the proposed framework. Then, we
further construct a bicluster membership matrix based on
the newly proposed similarity measurement to reduce the
dimensionality. Finally, a fast and superior ELM classifier
is adopted for automatic detection for epileptic seizures. To
enhance the performance of the framework, we investigate
both optimal parameters of CC algorithm and suitable clas-
sifier for the proposed framework. On the basis of the former
studies, results of extensive experiments and comparisons
also verify the performances of our framework in terms of
high prediction accuracy and robustness. Last but not the
least, studies on characteristics of identified biclusters also
further suggest that the proposed framework might help cli-
nicians better understand the mechanism of epilepsy.
Although results presented in this paper demonstrate the
great potential of our proposed framework for epilepsy diag-
nosis and treatment, it is inevitable that our current study
has certain limitations. One of the major limitations derives
from the shortcomings of CC algorithm, such as masking of
null values and replacing discovered biclusters with random
numbers. These shortcomings might impact the discovery
of high quality biclusters [50], which in turn decreases the
prediction accuracy of the proposed framework. Therefore,
to tackle the problem and further boost the performance of
the framework, modifying the CC algorithm or developing
a new appealing biclustering algorithm is an important and
urgent research direction in the near future. In addition, our
proposed framework should be eventually applied to long
term continuous recordings from patients with epilepsy
real-world clinical applications. Nevertheless, EEG datasets
collected by long term continuous recordings tend to suffer
from myogenic artifacts caused by the muscle activities or
eye movements and so on, which will affect the prediction
accuracy of the framework. Thus, integrating some artifact
removal procedures such as methods based on the independ-
ent component analysis and wavelet transform [51] into the
framework will be also considered in future work.
Acknowledgements  The authors thank gratefully for the col-
leagues who have been concerned with the work and have provided
much more powerfully technical supports. This study was supported
by the Science and Technology Project of Guangdong Province (No.
2016A010101020, 2016A010101022, 2016A010101021), the Science
13
Int. J. Mach. Learn. & Cyber. (2019) 10:311–323
and Technology Project of Zhanjiang City (No.2016B01118), the
Research Funds of Guangdong Medical University (No.M2015031,
M2015029).
Compliance with ethical standards 
Conflict of interest  The authors declare that there is no conflict of
interests regarding the publication of this paper.
References
1. Fisher RS, Boas WVE, Blume W et al (2005) Response: defi-
nitions proposed by the International League Against Epilepsy
(ILAE) and the International Bureau for Epilepsy (IBE). Epilepsia
46(10):1701–1702
2. WHO. Media Centre, Epilepsy, Fact Sheet. http://www.who.int/
mediacentre/factsheets/fs999/en/. Accessed 8 Oct 2016
3. Ellis N, Upton D, Thompson P (2000) Epilepsy and the fam-
ily: a review of current literature. Seizure J Br Epilepsy Assoc
9(1):22–30
4. Stam CJ, Pijn JPM, Suffczynski P et al (1999) Dynamics of the
human alpha rhythm: evidence for non-linearity? Clin Neuro-
physiol 110(10):1801–1813
5. Zhao H, Guo X, Wang M et al (2015) Analyze EEG signals with
extreme learning machine based on PMIS feature selection. Int J
Mach Learn Cybern 1–7
6. Liu A, Hahn JS, Heldt GP et al (1992) Detection of neonatal sei-
zures through computerized EEG analysis. Electroencephalogr
Clin Neurophysiol 82(1):30–37
7. Alkan A, Kiymik MK (2007) Comparison of AR and Welch meth-
ods in epileptic seizure detection. J Med Syst 30(6):413–419
8. Adeli H, Zhou Z, Dadmehr N (2003) Analysis of EEG records in
an epileptic patient using wavelet transform. J Neurosci Methods
123(1):69–87
9. Übeyli ED (2010) Lyapunov exponents/probabilistic neural
networks for analysis of EEG signals. Expert Systems Appl
37(2):985–992
10. Lehnertz K, Elger CE (1995) Spatio-temporal dynamics of the
primary epileptogenic area in temporal lobe epilepsy character-
ized by neuronal complexity loss. Electroencephalogr Clin Neu-
rophysiol 95(2):108–117
11. Song Y, Crowcroft J, Zhang J (2012) Automatic epileptic sei-
zure detection in EEGs based on optimized sample entropy and
extreme learning machine. J Neurosci Methods 210(2):132–146
12. Pachori RB (2008) Discrimination between ictal and seizure-free
EEG signals using empirical mode decomposition. Res Lett Signal
Process 2008:5
13. Geva AB, Kerem DH (1998) Forecasting generalized epileptic
seizures from the EEG signal by wavelet analysis and dynamic
unsupervised fuzzy clustering. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng
45(10):1205–1216
14. Orhan U, Hekim M, Ozer M (2011) EEG signals classification
using the K-means clustering and a multilayer perceptron neural
network model. Expert Syst Appl 38(10):13475–13481
15. Sommer D, Golz M (2001) Clustering of EEG-Segments Using
Hierarchical Agglomerative Methods and Self-Organizing Maps.
In: Proceedings of the 2001 International Conference on Artificial
Neural Networks, Vienna, Austria, pp 642–649
16. Hsu WY (2012) Fuzzy Hopfield neural network clustering for
single-trial motor imagery EEG classification. Expert Syst Appl
Int J 39(1):1055–1061
17. Zandi AS, Tafreshi R, Javidan M et al (2013) Predicting epileptic
seizures in scalp EEG based on a variational bayesian Gaussian
Int. J. Mach. Learn. & Cyber. (2019) 10:311–323 323
mixture model of zero-crossing intervals. IEEE Trans Biomed
Eng 60(5):1401–1413
18. Cheng Y, Church GM (2000) Biclustering of expression data. In:
Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Intelligent
Systems for Molecular Biology, San Diego, La Jolla, California,
USA, pp. 93–103
19. Chen HC, Zou W, Lu TP et al (2014) A composite model for
subgroup identification and prediction via bicluster analysis. Plos
One 9(10):e111318
20. Carreiro AV, Anunciação O, Carriço JA et al (2011) Prognostic
prediction through biclustering-based classification of clinical
gene expression time series. J Integr Bioinform 8(3):175–175
21. Asgarian N, Greiner R (2006) Using rank-1 biclusters to classify
microarray data. Department of Computing Science, University
of Alberta, Edmonton, pp 1–10
22. Busygin S, Boyko N, Pardalos PM et al (2007) Biclustering EEG
data from epileptic patients treated with vagus nerve stimulation.
Data Min Syst Anal Optim Biomed 953(1):220–231
23. Huang GB, Zhu QY, Siew CK (2006) Extreme learning machine:
theory and applications. Neurocomputing 70(1–3):489–501
24. Hartigan JA (1972) Direct Clustering of a Data Matrix. J Am Stat
Assoc 67(337):123–129
25. Bendor A, Chor B, Karp R et al (2003) Discovering local structure
in gene expression data: the order-preserving submatrix problem.
In: Proceedings of the 6th Annual International Conference on
Computational Biology, Washington, DC, USA, vol. 10, no. 3–4,
pp. 49–57
26. Lazzeroni L, Owen A (2002) Plaid models for gene expression
data. Stat Sin 12(1):61–86
27. de Castro PAD, de França FO, Ferreira HM et al (2007) Applying
biclustering to text mining: an immune-inspired approach. Artif
Immune Syst 83–94
28. Wang B, Miao Y, Zhao H et  al (2016) A biclustering-based
method for market segmentation using customer pain points. Eng
Appl Artif Intell 47:101–109
29. Inbarani H, Thangavel K (2010) A robust biclustering approach
for effective web personalization. Visual analytics and interactive
technologies: data, text and web mining applications, pp 186–202
30. Xue Y, Liu Z, Luo J et al (2015) Stock market trading rules discov-
ery based on biclustering method. Math Probl Eng 2015(1):1–13
31. Symeonidis P, Nanopoulos A, Papadopoulos AN et al (2008)
Nearest-biclusters collaborative filtering based on constant and
coherent values. Inf Retr 11(1):51–75
32. Madeira SC, Oliveira AL (2004) Biclustering algorithms for bio-
logical data analysis: a survey. IEEE/ACM Trans Comput Biol
Bioinform 1(1):24–45
33. Prelić A, Bleuler S, Zimmermann P et al (2006) A systematic
comparison and evaluation of biclustering methods for gene
expression data. Bioinformatics 22(9):1122–1129
34. Tanay A, Sharan R, Shamir R (2002) Discovering statistically
significant biclusters in gene expression data. Bioinformatics
18(Suppl 1):S136–S144
35. Kumar U, Raja SK, Mukhopadhyay C et al (2011) Hybrid Bayes-
ian classifier for improved classification accuracy. IEEE Geosci
Remote Sens Lett 8(3):474–477
36. Zhang GP (2000) Neural networks for classification: a survey.
IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part C (Appl Rev) 30(4):451–462
37. Kumar Y, Dewal ML, Anand RS (2014) Epileptic seizure detec-
tion using DWT based fuzzy approximate entropy and support
vector machine. Neurocomputing 133(8):271–279
38. Kotsiantis SB (2007) Supervised machine learning: a review of
classification techniques. Informatica 31(3):249–268
39. Wang XZ, Chen AX, Feng HM (2011) Upper integral net-
work with extreme learning mechanism. Neurocomputing
74(16):2520–2525
40. Yuan Q, Zhou W, Li S et al (2011) Epileptic EEG classification
based on extreme learning machine and nonlinear features. Epi-
lepsy Res 96(1–2):29–38
41. Andrzejak RG, Lehnertz K, Mormann F et al (2001) Indications of
nonlinear deterministic and finite-dimensional structures in time
series of brain electrical activity: dependence on recording region
and brain state. Phys Rev E 64(6):0619071–0619078
42. Jahankhani P, Kodogiannis V, Revett K (2006) EEG Signal Clas-
sification Using Wavelet Feature Extraction and Neural Networks.
IEEE Symposium on John Vincent Atanasoff International Mod-
ern Computing, Sofia, pp 120–124
43. Polat K, Güneş S (2007) Classification of epileptiform EEG using
a hybrid system based on decision tree classifier and fast Fourier
transform. Appl Math Comput 187(2):1017–1026
44. Guo L, Rivero D, Seoane JA et al (2009) Classification of EEG
signals using relative wavelet energy and artificial neural net-
works. In: Proceedings of the 2nd Genetic and Evolutionary
Computation Conference, Shanghai, China, pp. 177–184
45. Chandaka S, Chatterjee A, Munshi S (2009) Cross-correlation
aided support vector machine classifier for classification of EEG
signals. Expert Syst Appl Int J 36(2):1329–1336
46. Übeyli˙ ED (2010) Least squares support vector machine employ-
ing model-based methods coefficients for analysis of EEG signals.
Expert Syst Appl 37(1):233–239
47. Pachori RB, Patidar S (2014) Epileptic seizure classification in
EEG signals using second-order difference plot of intrinsic mode
functions. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 113(2):pp 494–502
48. Jie X, Li C, Li H et al (2015) The detection of epileptic seizure
signals based on fuzzy entropy. J Neurosci Methods 243:18–25
49. Song JL, Hu W, Zhang R (2015) Automated detection of epileptic
EEGs using a novel fusion feature and extreme learning machine.
Neurocomputing 175(PA):383–391
50. Yang J, Wang H, Wang W et al (2003) Enhanced Biclustering on
Expression Data. In: Proceedings of the 3rd IEEE Symposium on
Bioinformatics and Bioengineering, pp. 321–327
51. Akhtar MT, Mitsuhashi W, James CJ (2012) Employing spa-
tially constrained ICA and wavelet denoising, for automatic
removal of artifacts from multichannel EEG data. Signal Process
92(2):401–416
13