J. Biomedical Science and Engineering, 2010, 3, 556-567
doi:10.4236/jbise.2010.36078 Published Online June 2010 (http://www.SciRP.org/journal/jbise/
Published Online June 2010 in SciRes. http://www.scirp.org/journal/jbise
A new approach for epileptic seizure detection: sample entropy
based feature extraction and extreme learning machine
Yuedong Song, Pietro Liò
Computer Laboratory, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Email: ys340@cam.ac.uk; Pietro.Lio@cl.cam.ac.uk
Received 4 March 2010; revised 15 April 2010; accepted 18 April 2010.
The electroencephalogram (EEG) signal plays a key
role in the diagnosis of epilepsy. Substantial data is
generated by the EEG recordings of ambulatory re-
cording systems, and detection of epileptic activity
requires a time-consuming analysis of the complete
length of the EEG time series data by a neurology
expert. A variety of automatic epilepsy detection sys-
tems have been developed during the last ten years.
In this paper, we investigate the potential of a re-
cently-proposed statistical measure parameter re-
garded as Sample Entropy (SampEn), as a method of
feature extraction to the task of classifying three dif-
ferent kinds of EEG signals (normal, interictal and
ictal) and detecting epileptic seizures. It is known
that the value of the SampEn falls suddenly during an
epileptic seizure and this fact is utilized in the pro-
posed diagnosis system. Two different kinds of classi-
fication models, back-propagation neural network
(BPNN) and the recently-developed extreme learning
machine (ELM) are tested in this study. Results show
that the proposed automatic epilepsy detection sys-
tem which uses sample entropy (SampEn) as the only
input feature, together with extreme learning ma-
chine (ELM) classification model, not only achieves
high classification accuracy (95.67%) but also very
fast speed.
Keywords: Epileptic Seizure; Electroencephalogram
(EEG); Sample Entropy (SampEn ); Backpropagation
Neural Network (BPNN); Extreme Learning Machine
(ELM); Detection
Epilepsy, the second most common serious neurological
disorder in human beings after stroke, is a chronic con-
dition of the nervous system and it is characterized by
recurrent unprovoked seizures. Approximately one in
every 100 individuals worldwide are suffering from epi-
lepsy [1]. Electroencephalography (EEG) is an important
clinical tool, monitoring, diagnosing and managing neu-
rological disorders related to epilepsy. In comparison
with other methods such as Electrocorticogram (ECOG),
EEG is a clean and safe technique for monitoring the
brain activity.
In spite of available dietary, drug and surgical treat-
ment options, currently nearly one out of three epilepsy
patients cannot be treated. They are completely subject
to the sudden and unforeseen seizures which have a
great effect on their daily life, with temporary impair-
ments of perception, speech, motor control, memory
and/or consciousness. Many new therapies are being
investigated and among them the most promising are
implantable devices that deliver direct electrical stimula-
tion to affected areas of the brain. These treatments will
greatly depend on robust algorithms for seizure detection
to perform effectively. Because the onset of the seizures
cannot be predicted in a short period, a continuous re-
cording of the EEG is required to detect epilepsy. How-
ever, analysis by visual inspection of long recordings of
EEG, in order to find traces of epilepsy, is tedious, time-
consuming and high-cost. Therefore, automated detec-
tion of epilepsy has been a goal of many researchers for
a long time. With the advent of technology, the digital
EEG data can be input to an automated seizure detection
system, allowing physicians to treat more patients in a
given time because the time taken to review the EEG
data is greatly reduced by automation.
In recent years, there has been an increasing interest in
the application of pattern recognition (PR) methods for
automatic epileptic seizure detection. Several methods
have been developed for handling EEG signals classifi-
cation, and among these methods, Multi-layer Percep-
tron Neural Network (MLPNN) [2-7] and Support Vec-
tor Machine (SVM) [8-10] are two widely-used classifi-
cation paradigms. Most of the automatic epileptic sei-
zure detection system is built by time-frequency domain
based feature extraction followed by a variety of classi-
fication models. It has been found that the classification
Y. Song et al. / J. Biomedical Science and Engineering 3 (2010) 556-567 557
Copyright © 2010 SciRes. JBiSE
performance of these automatic detection systems totally
depends on the feature extraction of the EEG time series
As an effective tool for detection and characterization
of signals, deterministic chaos plays a key role. Many
chaos-producing mechanisms have been created and
applied for recognizing the behaviour of the dynamics of
the system. The physiological time-series signals are
considered chaotic. Recently studies on the basis of
measuring entropies have been employed for biomedical
studies [13]. The randomness of non-linear time series
data is well embodied by calculating entropies of the
time series data and it can supply recognizable variation
for normal and abnormal physiological signals. Entropy
is a measure of uncertainty. The level of chaos can be
measured by applying entropy of the system. Higher
entropy stands for higher uncertainty and a more chaotic
system. X. L. Li, et al. [14] investigated permutation
entropy as a tool to predict the absence seizures of ge-
netic absence epilepsy rats by applying EEG recordings.
H. Ocak [15] presented a new scheme on the basis of
approximate entropy and discrete wavelet transform to
detect epileptic seizure from EEG time series data that
was recorded from normal subjects and epileptic patients.
K. S. Pravin, et al. [16] had shown some initial investi-
gations on wavelet entropy for epileptic seizure detec-
In this study, we proposed a new method for epileptic
seizure detection by using feature extraction based on
sample entropy (SampEn ) followed by two non-linear
classification models, namely, back-propagation neural
network (BPNN) and extreme learning machine (ELM)
which is a recently-proposed classification model [17].
The proposed scheme was tested using clinical electro-
encephalogram (EEG) signals obtained from five healthy
subjects and five epileptic patients during both interictal
and ictal periods. The results showed that the proposed
scheme (SampEn + ELM) was capable of detecting epi-
leptic seizures not only with a high accuracy but also
with a very fast speed, which demonstrates its potential
for real-time implementation in an automated epilepsy
EEG data acquisition
Feature extraction
Classification models
Diagnosis decision by the
Figure 1. Schematics of the pro-
posed diagnostic expert system.
detection and diagnosis support systems. Up to now, to
the best of our knowledge, there is no study in the lit-
erature related to the assessment of classification per-
formance using sample entropy based feature extraction
followed by ELM classification model when applied
specifically to the normal/interictal/ictal discrimination
problem. Figure 1 shows the schematics of the proposed
diagnosis expert system.
In this study, a publicly-available database introduced in
[18] has been used. The EEG data considered in this
work is composed of three different sets, each containing
100 single-channel EEG data of 23.6 s duration. The
first data set includes surface EEG recordings that were
acquired from five healthy volunteers using a standard-
ized electrode placement scheme. The subjects were
awake and relaxed with their eyes open (normal periods).
The data set for the last two sets was taken from five
epileptic patients experiencing pre-surgical diagnosis.
The second data set was composed of intracranial EEG
recordings during seizure-free intervals (interictal peri-
ods) from within the epileptogenic zone of the brain. The
EEG signals in the third data set were recorded during
78c 78
78a R
(a) (b) (c)
Figure 2. Intracranial electrode placements.
558 Y. Song et al. / J. Biomedical Science and Engineering 3 (2010) 556-567
Copyright © 2010 SciRes. JBiSE
Table 1. Summary of the clinical data.
Data set 1 Data set 2 Data set 3
Subjects Five healthy subjects Five epileptic patients Five epileptic patients
Electrode type Surface Intracranial Intracranial
Electrode placement International 10-20 system Within epileptogenic zone Within epileptogenic zone
Patient’s state Awake and eyes open (Normal) Seizure-free (Interictal) Seizure activity (Ictal)
Number of epochs 100 100 100
Epoch duration (s) 23.6 23.6 23.6
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500
Amplitude (microvolts)
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500
Amplitude (microvolts)
Amplitude (microvolts)
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500
Figure 3. Sample EEG recordings. (a) Normal EEG; (b) Inter-
ictal EEG; (c) Ictal EEG.
seizure activity (ictal periods) using depth electrodes
placed within the epileptogenic zone of the brain. All
EEG signals were recorded with the same 128-channel
amplifier. The data were digitized at 173.6 samples per
second at 12-bit resolution. Band pass filter was set to
0.53-60 Hz. The total number of EEG signals is 300
(100 normal signals, 100 interictal signals and 100 ictal
signals). Each data set has 4096 sampling points. Figure 2
describes the electrode placement for recording of EEG
signals. A summary of the data set is given in Table 1.
Figure 3 describes example of EEG signals of each of
the three data sets.
3.1. Sample Entropy
Entropy is a concept handling predictability and ran-
domness, with higher values of entropy always related to
less system order and more randomness. In recent years,
a variety of estimators have been proposed to quantify
the entropy of time series. These methods can be roughly
divided into two categories, embedding entropy and
spectral entropy [19]. Embedding entropy supplies in-
formation regarding how EEG time series signals change
with time, by comparing each time series signal with a
lagged form of itself [20]. In [13], a new family of statis-
tics called Sample Entropy (SampEn) was introduced
and characterized. This measure is embedding entropy
quantifying the complexity in time series data without
the weaknesses that widely utilized non-linear ap-
proaches have. The SampEn is less sensitive to noise and
can be applied for short-length time series data [13]. Ad-
ditionally, it is resistant to short strong transient inter-
ferences (outliers) such as spikes. These characteristics
make Sample Entropy an appealing tool for nonlinear
analysis of physiological signals.
In spite of its advantages over other non-linear esti-
mators, the SampEn is not widely used. In [20], sample
entropy was used to analyze the electroencephalogram
background activity of Alzheimer’s disease patients for
testing the hypothesis that the regularity of their EEGs is
higher than that of age-matched controls. M. Aboy [21]
conducted a characterization study of SampEn for sup-
plying additional insights about the interpretation of this
complexity metric in the context of biomedical signal
Y. Song et al. / J. Biomedical Science and Engineering 3 (2010) 556-567 559
Copyright © 2010 SciRes. JBiSE
analysis. Moreover, this entropy measure has been used
to evaluate the signal complexity of the cyclic behaviour
of heart rate variability (HRV) in obstructive sleep apnea
syndrome [22]. In this study, SampEn is investigated for
the first time as a feature extracted in the automatic de-
tection of epilepsy.
For calculating the SampEn, the embedding dimension
(m) and vector comparison distance (r) must be specified.
It is common to set the embedding dimension parameter
m to be m = 1, 2 or 3 and to set the vector comparison
distance r to be some percentage of the standard deviation
of the time series so as not to depend on the absolute am-
plitude of the signal [13]. SampEn(m,r,N) is the negative
logarithm of the conditional probability that two se-
quences similar for m points remain similar at the next
point, where self-matches are not included in calculating
the probability. Thus, a larger value often corresponds to
more irregularity or complexity in the time series data. In
the proposed automated epileptic seizure detection system,
the value of the SampEn is determined as shown in the
following steps:
1) Given N data points from a time series {x(n)} =
x(1), x(2),...,x(N), take m vectors (1),..., (1)
( 1)],xi m
defined as mfor ( )[( ),(1),...,Xixi xi
These vectors stand for m consecutive x val-
ues, starting at the ith sample.
2) Let r denote the noise filter level which is defined
0.1,0.2,...,0.5rgStdfor g  (1)
where St d represents the standard deviation of the data
sequence X.
3) The distance between vectors ()
iand ()
is defined as the maximum absolute
difference between their scalar components:
[( ),()],
dXi Xj
0,..., 1
[(),()] max(|()()|)
mm km
dXi Xjxikxjk
. (2)
4) For a given ()
, count the number of j
such that
(1, )jNmj
 [(),()]
This number is represented as , Then, for
1,iNm 
() 1
Br B
 i
Here, note that only the first vectors of length
m are considered in order to ensure that for
the vector
()1iNm 1m
is also defined.
5) Define as
() ().
Br Br
6) We increment the dimension to m + 1 and compute
as the number of 1()
within r of 1()
where j ranges from 1 to . We then define
() .
 (5)
7) We define ()
r as
Thus, represents the probability that two se-
quences will match for m points, whereas
r re-
pressents the probability that two sequences will match
for m + 1 points.
The sample entropy is defined by
(,) lim{ln[]}
SampEn m rBr
 (7)
Since the time series length is finite, SampEn is esti-
mated as
(,, )ln[]
SampEn mrN
3.2. An Example of the Computation Procedure
of SampEn
Assume that the sequence N
is composed of 50 sam-
pling points (i.e., N = 50).
= {51,52,53,54,55, 51,52,53,54,55,51,...,55}
The total sequence is periodic of 5. Let us choose m=5
and r = 2, so we have:
5(2) {52,53,54,55,51}X
5(5) {55,51,52,53,54}X
and so on. Firstly we want to find the number of X5(i)
which is similar to X5(1). Because we have chosen r = 2
as the threshold parameter, which means each of the five
elements of X5(i) has to be within ±2 units of the corre-
sponding element of X5(1). For instance, X5(2) is not
similar to X5(1) because the last elements in these two
sequences (51,55) differ by more than two units. The
conditions of similarity to X5(1) are satisfied only by
X5(6), X5(11), X
5(16), X
5(21),..., X
5(41) (excludes X5(1)
since j i and also excludes X5(46) since only the first
45 elements of the X5(i) are considered in terms of the
definition of SampEn). Thus, we get B1 = 8. Because the
whole number of X5(i) is so
we have
1505144,Nm 
560 Y. Song et al. / J. Biomedical Science and Engineering 3 (2010) 556-567
Copyright © 2010 SciRes. JBiSE
(2) .
The above steps are repeated for determining the num-
ber of X5(i) which are similar to X5(2), X5(3) and so on.
By using the same inference, X5(2) is similar to X5(7),
X5(12), X5(17),..., X5(42). Thus, we also get B2 = 8. Gen-
erally, in this example, we have Bi = 8 for
Therefore, is 8/44 and we can get the mean
value of all 45 of :
1iNm .
45 8
45 44
In order to get SampEn(5,2 ,N), the above-mentioned
computation procedure needs to be repeated for m = 6.
Doing so, we get
6(1) {51,52,53,54,55,51}X
6(2) {52,53,54,55,51,52}X
6(3) {53,54,55,51,52,53}X
and so on. By the same reasoning steps as that with m =
5, we find that:
7 if i=5 modulo 5
1, A
8 otherwise
 
Therefore, is either 7/43 or 8/43, depending
on , and the mean value of all 44 elements of the
43 43
(2) 0.1818
44 44
Finally, we compute the value of SampEn as follows:
(5, 2,)ln[]ln10
SampEn NA
This is the smallest value of SampEn, which indicates
that the original time series data is highly regular and
3.3. Levenberg-Marquardt Algorithm
Artificial neural network training is often regarded as a
nonlinear least-squares problem and the Levenberg-
Marquardt algorithm is a least-squares estimation algo-
rithm utilizing the maximum neighbourhood idea, and it
appears to be the fastest method for training feed- for-
ward neural networks. Let be an objective error
function composed of n individual error terms as
()Ew 2()
()()|| ()||
where j
and dj is the desired value
of output neuron j, is the actual output of the neu-
() ()
ewy y
The objective of the Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm
is to calculate the weight vector w so that is
minimized. By utilizing the LM algorithm, a novel
weight vector wp+1 can be obtained from the previous
weight vector wp as follows:
where s is defined as
(())( )
 (11)
In Equation (10), p
is the Jacobian of f assessed at
p, γ is the Marquardt parameter, and I is the identity
matrix. The Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm can be de-
scribed as follows: 1) Calculate . 2) Begin with
a small value of γ (
). 3) Solve equation (11) for
and calculate pp
Ew( )w
. 4) If ()
Ew w
increment γ by a factor of 10 and go to step 3. 5)
If ()
, decrement γ by a factor of 10,
ww w
and go to step 3.
3.4. Extreme Learning Machine (ELM)
The general trend in current study of automatic epileptic
seizure detection has focused on high accuracy but has
not considered the time taken to train the classification
models, which should be an important factor of devel-
oping an EEG-based detection device for epileptic sei-
zures because the online device will need to update its
training during use. Therefore some classification mod-
els with high classification accuracy may not be satis-
factory when considering the trade-off between the clas-
sification accuracy and the time for training the classifi-
cation models. In our study, in addition to exploring the
potential of a nonlinear feature of the EEG signal called
sample entropy for electroencephalogram time series
classification and epileptic seizure detection, we also
investigate the use of a novel paradigm of learning ma-
chine called Extreme Learning Machine (ELM) [17], in
order to obtain a balance between high classification
accuracy and short training time. In recent years, Ex-
treme Learning Machine has been increasingly popular
in classification tasks due to its high generalization abil-
ity and fast learning speed. In [23], a classification sys-
tem is built using ELM to classify protein sequences
with ten classes of super-families obtained from a do-
main database, and its performance is compared with
that of Back-propagation Neural Networks. The results
show ELM greatly outperforms BPNN in terms of both
training time and classification accuracy. R. Zhang, et al.
[24] developed an ELM for multi-category classification
in three Cancer Microarray Gene Expression datasets,
Y. Song et al. / J. Biomedical Science and Engineering 3 (2010) 556-567 561
Copyright © 2010 SciRes. JBiSE
and the results reveal that ELM can not only obtain high
classification accuracy but also avoid problems such as
over-fitting, local minima, and improper learning rate. In
addition to the field of Bioinformatics, Extreme Learn-
ing Machine has also been successfully applied to
Biosignal Processing. N. Y. Liang, et al. [25] proposed
an ELM-based classification scheme to classify five
mental tasks from different subjects using EEG signals
available from a Brain Computer Interfaces (BCIs) da-
tabase. Performance of ELM is compared with a
Back-propagation Neural Network (BPNN) and also
Support Vector Machine (SVMs). Experimental results
show that ELM needs an order of magnitude less train-
ing time compared with SVMs and two orders of mag-
nitude less training time compared with BPNN, and the
classification accuracy of ELM is similar to that of
SVMs and BPNN. In [26], a classification scheme based
on ELM and Principle Component Analysis (PCA) was
developed for arrhythmia classification, and finally
achieved 97.5% in average accuracy, 97.44% in average
sensitivity, 98.46% in average specificity, and 2.423 s in
learning time. The idea behind ELM is presented as fol-
Suppose learning N arbitrary different instances
t, where 12
[,,..., ]
iii in
xx xR
, and i
12iiim, standard Single-layer Feedforward
Networks with N hidden neurons and activation function
[, ,tt
x are mathematically modelled as a linear system
iiji j
wxbo jN
 
where 12 denotes the weight vector
connecting the ith hidden neuron and the input neuron,
12 denotes the weight vector con-
necting the i-th hidden neuron and output neurons, and
represents the threshold of the i-th hidden neuron.
represents the inner product of i and j
[,,..., ]
iii in
www w
, ,...,]T
iii im
 
. If
the Single-layer Feedforward Network with N hidden
neurons with activation function ()
is able to ap-
proximate N distinct instances
t with zero error
means that
11 11
(,...,, ,...,,,...,)
() (
Nh NhN
Nh Nh
Hww bb xx
gw xbgwxb
gw xbgwxb
 
 
 
Nh N
Nh mNm
 
H is the hidden layer output matrix of the SLFN.
Hence for fixed arbitrary input weights i and the
hidden layer bias s, training a Single-layer Feed-forward
Network equals to discovering a least-squares solution
of the linear system ,
is the
best weights, where
is the Moore-Penrose general-
ized inverse. In terms of [17], Extreme Learning Ma-
chine utilizes such Moore-Penrose inverse approach for
obtaining good generalization performance with ex-
tremely fast learning speed. Unlike some conventional
methods, for example Backpropagation algorithm, Ex-
treme Learning Machine is able to avoid problems in
tuning control parameters (learning epochs, learning rate,
and so on) and keeping to local minima.
The procedure of ELM for single-layer feedforward
networks is expressed as follows:
1) Choose arbitrary value for input weights and
biases of hidden neurons. i
2) Calculate hidden layer output matrix H.
3) Obtain the optimal
using .
Figure 4 shows the structure of ELM.
4.1. Performance Evaluation Parameters
All the simulations were based on a 2.27 GHz 2-core
CPU with 2 GB memory. In order to compare the per-
formance of ELM classifiers, we also implemented a
backpropagation neural network (BPNN) based on a
Levenberg-Marquardt back-propagation (LMBP) learn-
ing algorithm which is thought of as the fastest method
for training moderate-sized feed-forward neural net-
works according to [27]. For the BPNN and ELM, all of
the input values were normalized in the range of [–1,1].
The performance of the BPNN and ELM algorithms was
Figure 4. The structure of ELM.
562 Y. Song et al. / J. Biomedical Science and Engineering 3 (2010) 556-567
Copyright © 2010 SciRes. JBiSE
evaluated by the following measures:
1) Learning time: A measure of the time spent in train-
ing classification models;
2) Sensitivity (seizure free epileptogenic zone seg-
ments): Number of correct classified seizure free epilep-
togenic zone segments/Number of total seizure free epi-
leptogenic zone segments;
3) Sensitivity (epileptic seizure segments): Number of
correct classified epileptic seizure segments/Number of
total epileptic seizure segments;
4) Specificity: Number of correct classified healthy
segments/Number of total healthy segments;
5) Total classification accuracy: Number of correct
classified segments/Number of total segments;
4.2. Training and Testing: 10-Fold
There are a variety of methods of how to divide the EEG
dataset into training and testing datasets. To reduce the
bias of training and testing data, a 10-fold cross-valida-
tion technique is used. 10-fold cross-validation is a
method to improve over the holdout method. This tech-
nique will be implemented during the training periods,
for estimating how well the classification models that
learn from the training data will operate on future data
not seen during the testing period. Generally, with 10-
fold cross-validation, the data set is divided into 10 sub-
sets, and the holdout approach is re-iterated 10 times.
Each time, one of the 10 subsets is utilized as the testing
dataset and the other 9 subsets are put together for
forming a training dataset. Then the average error across
all 10 trials is calculated. According to [28], the result
obtained from one 10-fold cross validation may not be
dependable. In order to get low mean square error and
bias, the 10-fold cross-validation procedure is performed
10 times. All the simulation results were averaged over
ten repetitions of 10-fold cross validation.
4.3. Experiment Results and Discussion
Although the pattern length parameter m, the threshold r
and the number of sampling points of the time series
data play an important role in determining the outcome
of SampEn, there are no guidelines to set the values of
these parameters. In essence, the accuracy and confi-
dence of the entropy estimate improve when the number
of matches of length m and m + 1 increases. The number
of matches can be increased by choosing small m and
large r. However, if r is too large, some fluctuations of
the signal are not detected, and if r is too small, noise has
effect on the SampEn measure [29]. In this study, Sam-
pEn values are calculated for selected combinations of m,
r, and N. The values of m, r, and N that are employed in
the experiments are described as follows:
1) m = 1, 2, 3;
2) r = 10%-50% of standard deviation of the EEG data
sequence in increases of 10%;
3) N = 256, 512, 1024, 2048, 4096.
Values of SampEn are calculated for all normal
(healthy segments), interictal (seizure free epileptogenic
zone segments) and ictal (epileptic seizure segments)
EEG signals, and are fed to two classification models.
Using rectangular-window with different sizes, data
frames with different sizes (256, 512, 1024, 2048, 4096)
are formed and the values of SampEn are computed for
each data frame. Figure 5 demonstrates the sample plots
of the SampEn having clear distinction among normal,
interictal and ictal EEG signals. The values of Samp En
demonstrated in Figure 5(a) and Figure 5(b) are com-
puted with N = 2048 and 1024, respectively. From Fig-
ure 5, one can see that the value of SampEn is small for
ictal EEG signals (between 0.5 and 1.5) compared to
normal EEG signals (larger than 1.5). The value of
SampEn of interictal EEG signals (less than 0.5) is
smaller than that of ictal EEG signals. Figure 6 demon-
strates the sample plots of the values of SampEn accord-
ing to N = 1024 and 512 which have a partial overlap
among normal, interictal and ictal EEG signals. From
these figures, we find that the capability of the SampEn
for classifying normal, interictal and ictal EEG signals
totally depends on the parameter values of m, r, and N.
From these figures, it can be noted that utilizing a
simple linear discriminator may not achieve good results
since SampEn demonstrates clear distinction among the
normal, interictal and ictal EEG signals only for several
particular parameter combinations of m, r and N. For
example, a simple linear discriminator would be ineffi-
cient for the SampEn values, as demonstrated in Figure 6,
because a clear partial overlapping among the normal,
interictal and ictal EEG signals can be seen.
Figures 7-12 demonstrate the whole classification ac-
curacy achieved by neural network and extreme learning
machine by employing SampEn as the input feature.
It can be observed from Figures 7-12 that BPNN
shows good average accuracy in the range of 94.25%-
95.33%, only for several combinations of m, r, and N
(for example, m = 2, r = 0.3*Std, N = 2048; m = 3, r =
0.1*Std, N = 1024 and m = 2, r = 0.2*Std, N = 2048).
The BPNN achieves the best average accuracy of
95.33% with m = 2, r = 0.2*standard deviation of the
time series and N = 2048. For ELM, high average classi-
fication accuracy in the range of 94.97%-95.67% are
obtained for some combinations of m, r, and N (for ex-
ample, m = 2, r = 0.1*Std, N = 1024; m = 2, r = 0.2*Std,
N = 2048 and m = 3, r = 0.1*Std, N = 1024). The ELM
obtains the best average accuracy of 95.67% with m = 3,
= 0.1*standard deviation of the time series and N = r
Y. Song et al. / J. Biomedical Science and Engineering 3 (2010) 556-567 563
Copyright © 2010 SciRes.
Figure 5. Sample figures of SampEn showing clear discrimination among normal, interictal and ictal EEG signals
Figure 6. Sample figures of SampEn showing partial overlap among normal, interictal and ictal EEG signals.
564 Y. Song et al. / J. Biomedical Science and Engineering 3 (2010) 556-567
Copyright © 2010 SciRes. JBiSE
Figure 7. Average classification accuracy achieved by BPNN
with m = 1.
Figure 8. Average classification accuracy achieved by ELM
with m = 1.
Figure 9. Average classification accuracy achieved by BPNN
with m = 2.
1024. The average accuracies achieved by ELM for
other parameter combinations range from 91.19%-
94.83%, which are also acceptable for clinical diagnosis.
From the results, it can be concluded that, generally,
ELM outperforms BPNN for most of the parameter
Tables 2 and 3 show the classification results with the
highest accuracies of the BPNN (95.33%) and the ELM
(95.67%), respectively, by two confusion matrices. In
terms of the confusion matrix for BPNN, all healthy
segments were classified correctly by the BPNN, 2 sei-
zure-free epileptogenic zone segments were classified
incorrectly as healthy segments, 3 seizure-free epilepto-
genic zone segments were classified incorrectly as epi-
leptic seizure segments and 2 epileptic seizure segments
were classified incorrectly as seizure-free epileptogenic
zone segments. In terms of the confusion matrix for
ELM, all healthy segments were correctly classified, 2
seizure-free epileptogenic zone segments were classified
incorrectly as healthy segments, 3 seizure-free epilepto-
genic zone segments were classified incorrectly as epi-
leptic seizure segments and 2 epileptic seizure segments
were classified incorrectly as seizue-free epileptogenic
zone segments.
The values of statistical evaluation parameters intro-
duced in Subsection 4.1.1 are given in Table 4. As can be
Figure 10. Average classification accuracy achieved by ELM
with m=2.
Figure 11. Average classification accuracy achieved by BPNN
with m = 3.
Figure 12. Average classification accuracy achieved by ELM
with m = 3.
Y. Song et al. / J. Biomedical Science and Engineering 3 (2010) 556-567 565
Copyright © 2010 SciRes. JBiSE
Table 2. Confusion matrix (BPNN).
Output/desired Set A: healthy Segment Set D: seizure-free Epilep-
togenic zone Segment
Set E: epileptic Seizure
Set A: healthy
Segment 40 0 0
Set D: seizure-free
Epileptogenic zone
0 38 2
Set E: epileptic seizure
Segment 0 3 37
Table 3. Confusion matrix (ELM).
Output/desired Set A: healthy Segment
Set D: seizure-free
Epileptogenic zone
Set E: epileptic Seizure
Set A: healthy Segment 77 0 0
Set D: seizure-free Epi-
leptogenic zone Segment 2 72 3
Set E: epileptic seizure
Segment 0 2 84
Table 4. Performance comparison of ELM and BPNN.
Average Learning
Average Sensitivity
(seizure free epilepto-
genic zone segments)
Average Sensitivity
(epileptic seizure
Average Classification
ELM 0.0250 91.06 97.26% 98.77% 95.67%
BPNN 86.4807 92.91% 95.81% 7.54% 95.33%
seen, the BPNN discriminated healthy segments, sei-
zure-free epileptogenic zone segments and epileptic
seizure segments with the average accuracies of
97.54%, 92.91% and 95.81%, respectively. The
healthy segments, seizure-free epileptogenic zone
segments and epileptic seizure segments were classi-
fied with the average accuracy of 95.33%. The average
accuracies of the ELM were 98.77% for healthy seg-
ments, 91.06% for seizure-free epileptogenic zone
segments, and 97.26% for epileptic seizure segments.
The healthy segments, seizure-free epileptogenic zone
segments and epileptic seizure segments were classi-
fied with an average accuracy of 95.67%. Hence, the
average accuracy of the ELM classifier is slightly
higher than that of the BPNN classifier. In addition, in
Table 4, we find that the learning time of the ELM
classifier is 0.0250 seconds while the learning time of
the BPNN classifier is 86.4807 seconds. The ELM
classifier can run 3459 times faster than the BPNN
classifier. Thus, in the case of real-time implementa-
tion of epilepsy diagnosis support system, ELM classi-
fiers are more appropriate than BPNN classifiers.
In Table 5, we present a comparison in classification
performance achieved by different methods. We have
quoted results from our present proposed method and
also from recently reported in [30] and [31]. The datasets
566 Y. Song et al. / J. Biomedical Science and Engineering 3 (2010) 556-567
Copyright © 2010 SciRes. JBiSE
Table 5. Comparison of classification accuracy obtained by our approach for the detection of epileptic
seizures compared to the classification accuracy obtained by other researchers.
Authors Method Accuracy
Sadati et al. [30] Discrete wavelet transform-Adaptive neural fuzzy network 85.90%
Übeyli [31] Discrete wavelet transform-Combined neural network 94.83%
This work. Sample entropy-Extreme learning machine 95.67%
used in these experiments are the same. It is shown in
the table that the result obtained from our approach is the
best presented for this dataset, indicating an improve-
ment ment from 0.84% to 9.77% from other approaches
proposed in the literature.
This study presents an attempt to develop a general-
purpose EEG epilepsy detection scheme that can be used
for classifying different kinds of EEG time series signals.
Diagnosing epilepsy is not an easy task, which needs
acquisition of patients’ EEG recording and collecting
additional clinical information. The proposed system
employed a recently-proposed statistical parameter re-
ferred to as Sample entropy (SampEn), together with
extreme learning machine (ELM) which is a recently-
developed classification model, to classify subjects as
normal subject, patients not having an epileptic seizure
or patients having an epileptic seizure. This supplies a
valuable diagnostic decision support tool for physicians
treating potential epilepsy. Experimental results show
that the proposed scheme achieves an excellent per-
formance with not only the accuracy as high as 95.67%
but also with very fast learning speed (0.0250 seconds),
which demonstrates its potential for real-time imple-
mentation in an epilepsy diagnosis support system.
This work is financed by the EU 6 Framework Programme Project:
Measuring and Modeling Relativistic-Like Effects in Brain and NCSs’.
[1] Iasemidis, L.D., Shiau, D.S., Chaovalitwongse, W.,
Sackellares, J.C., Pardalos, P.M., Principe, J.C., Carney,
P.R., Prasad, A., Veeramani, B. and Tsakalis, K. (2003)
Adaptive epileptic seizure prediction system. IEEE
Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, 50(5), 616-627.
[2] Acir, N., Oztura, I., Kuntalp, M., Baklan, B. and Guzelis,
C. (2005) Automatic detection of epileptiform events in
EEG by a three-stage procedure based on artificial neural
networks. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engine-
ering, 52(1), 30-40.
[3] Ghosh-Dastidar, S., Adeli, H. and Dadmehr, N. (2007)
Mixed-band wavelet-chaos-neural network methodology
for epilepsy and epileptic seizure detection. IEEE Trans-
actions on Biomedical Engineering, 54(9), 1545-1551.
[4] Jahankhani, P., Kodogiannis, V. and Revett, D. (2006)
EEG signal classification using wavelet feature
extraction and neural networks. IEEE John Vincent
Atanasoff 2006 International Symposium on Modern
Computing, Sofia, 3-6 October 2006, 120-124.
[5] Kalayci, T. and Ozdamar, O. (1995) Wavelet prepro-
cessing for automated neural network detection of EEG
spikes. IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology,
14(2), 160-166.
[6] Übeyli, E.D. (2009) Statistics over features: EEG signals
analysis. Computers in Biology and Medicine, 39(8), 733-
[7] Wang, B.J., Jun, L., Bai, J., Peng, L., Li, Y. and Li, G.
(2006) EEG recognition based on multiple types of
information by using wavelet packet transform and
neural networks. Proceedings of 2005 IEEE Engineering
in Medicine and Biology Conference, Shanghai, 17-18
June 2006, 5377-5380.
[8] Chandaka, S., Chatterjee, A. and Munshi, S. (2009) Cross-
correlation aided support vector machine classifier for
classification of EEG signals. Expert Systems with
Applications, 36(2), 1329-1336.
[9] Guler, I. and Übeyli, E.D. (2007) Multiclass support
vector machines for EEG-signals classification. IEEE
Transactions on Information Technology in Biomedicine,
11(2), 117-126.
[10] Lima, C.A.M., Coelho, A.L.V. and Chagas, S. (2009)
Automatic EEG signal classification for epilepsy diagn-
osis with Relevance Vector Machines. Expert Systems
with Applications, 36(6), 10054-10059.
[11] Kannathal, N., Rajendra, A.U., Lim, C.M. and Sadasivan,
P.K. (2005) Characterization of EEG—A comparative
study. Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine,
80(1), 17-23.
[12] Srinivasan, V., Eswaran, C. and Sriraam, N. (2007)
Approximate entropy-based epileptic EEG detection
using artificial neural networks. IEEE Transactions on
Information Technology in Biomedicine, 11(3), 288-295.
[13] Richman, J.S. and Moorman, J. (2000) Physiological
time-series analysis using approximate entropy and
sample entropy. American Journal of Physiology, 278(6),
[14] Li, X.L., Ouyang, G.X. and Richards, D.A. (2007) Predi-
ctability analysis of absence seizures with permutation
entropy. Epilepsy Research, 77(1), 70-74.
[15] Ocak, H. (2009) Automatic detection of epileptic
seizures in EEG using discrete wavelet transform and
approximate entropy. Expert Systems with Applications,
36(2), 2027-2036.
[16] Pravin, K.S., Sriraam, N. and Prabhu, B.G. (2008)
Automated detection of epileptic seizures using wavelet
Y. Song et al. / J. Biomedical Science and Engineering 3 (2010) 556-567 567
Copyright © 2010 SciRes. JBiSE
entropy feature with recurrent neural network classifier.
Proceedings of the 2008 IEEE Region 10 Conference of
TeNCON, Hyderabad, 19-21 November 2008, 1-5.
[17] Huang, G.B., Zhu, Q.Y. and Siew, C.K. (2004) Extreme
learning machine: A new learning scheme of feedforward
neural networks. Proceedings of the 2004 International
Joint Conference on Neural Networks, 2, 25-29 July
2004, 985-990.
[18] Andrzejak, R.G., Lehnertz, K., Mormann, F., Rieke, C.,
David, P. and Elger, C.E. (2001) Indications of nonlinear
deterministic and finite dimensional structures in time
series of brain electrical activity: Dependence on
recording region and brain state. Physical Review E,
64(6), 61907(1-8).
[19] Sleigh, J.W., Steyn-Ross, D.A., Grant, C. and Ludbrook,
G. (2004) Cortical entropy changes with general anaes-
thesia: theory and experiment. Physiological Measure-
ment, 25(4), 921-934.
[20] Abásolo, D., Hornero, R., Espino, P., Álvarez, D. and
Poza, J. (2006) Entropy analysis of the EEG background
activity in Alzheimer’s disease patients. Physiological
Measurement, 27(3), 241-253.
[21] Aboy, M., Cuesta-Frau, D., Austin, D. and Mico-Tormos,
P. (2007) Characterization of sample entropy in the
context of biomedical signal analysis. Proceedings of the
29th Annual International Conference of the IEEE
Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, Lyon,
22-26 August 2007, 5942-5945.
[22] Al-Angari, H.M. and Sahakian, A.V. (2007) Use of
sample entropy approach to study heart rate variability in
obstructive sleep apnea syndrome. IEEE Transactions on
Biomedical Engineering, 54(10), 1900-1904.
[23] Wang D. and Huang, G.B. (2005) Protein sequence
classification using extreme learning machine. Procee-
dings of the 2005 IEEE International Joint Conference
on Neural Networks, Montreal, 3, 31 July-4 August 2005,
[24] R. Zhang, R., Huang, G.B., Sundararajan, N. and Saratch-
andran, P. (2007) Multicategory classifcation using an
extreme learning machine for microarray gene expression
cancer diagnosis. IEEE Transactions on Computational
Biology and Bioinformatics, 4(3), 485-495.
[25] Liang, N.Y., Saratchandran, P., Huang, G.B. and
Sundararajan, N. (2006) Classification of mental tasks
from EEG sginals using extreme learning machine.
International Journal of Neural Systems, 16(1), 29-38.
[26] Kim, J., Shin, H., Lee, Y. and Lee, M. (2007) Algorithms
for classifying arrhythmia using extreme learning
machine and principle component analysis, Proceedings
of the 29th Annual International Conference of the IEEE
Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, Lyon,
22-26 August 2007, 3257-3260.
[27] Hagan, M.T. and Menhaj, M.B. (1994) Training
feedforward networks with the Marquardt algorithm.
IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks, 5(6), 989-993.
[28] Lake, D.E., Richman, J.S., Griffin, M.P. and Moorman,
J.R. (2002) Sample entropy analysis of neonatal heart
rate variability. American Journal of Physiology—
Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative Physiology,
283(3), 789-797.
[29] Molinaro, A., Simon, R. and Pfeiffer, R. (2005) Predi-
ction error estimation: A comparison of resampling
methods. Bioinformatics, 21(15), 3301-3307.
[30] Sadati, N., Mohseni, H.R. and Mamgshoudi, A. (2006)
Epileptic seizure detection using neural fuzzy networks.
Proceedings of the 2006 IEEE International Conference
on Fuzzy Systems, Vancouver, 16-21 July 2006, 596-600.
[31] Übeyli, E.D. (2009) Combined neural network model
employing wavelet coeffients for EEG signals classifi-
cation. Digital Signal Processing, 19(2), 297-308.