4.5 Article

Quantifying cardio-respiratory phase synchronization-a comparison of five methods using ECGs of post-infarction patients

Journal

PHYSIOLOGICAL MEASUREMENT
Volume 38, Issue 5, Pages 925-939

Publisher

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/1361-6579/aa5dd3

Keywords

phase synchronization; cardio-respiratory coupling; circadian rhythm

Funding

  1. European Community [231288, IIF 628159]
  2. German Research Society (DFG) [KA 1676/4]
  3. German Israeli Foundation (GIF) [I-1298-415.13/2015, I-1372-303.7/2016]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: Phase synchronization between two weakly coupled oscillators occurs in many natural systems. Since it is difficult to unambiguously detect such synchronization in experimental data, several methods have been proposed for this purpose. Five popular approaches are systematically optimized and compared here. Approach: We study and apply the automated synchrogram method, the reduced synchrogram method, two variants of a gradient method, and the Fourier mode method, analyzing 24h data records from 1455 post-infarction patients, the same data with artificial inaccuracies, and corresponding surrogate data generated by Fourier phase randomization. Main results: We find that the automated synchrogram method is the most robust of all studied approaches when applied to records with missing data or artifacts, whereas the gradient methods should be preferred for noisy data and low-accuracy R-peak positions. We also show that a strong circadian rhythm occurs with much more frequent phase synchronization episodes observed during night time than during day time by all five methods. Significance: In specific applications, the identified characteristic differences as well as strengths and weaknesses of each method in detecting episodes of cardiorespiratory phase synchronization will be useful for selecting an appropriate method with respect to the type of systematic and dynamical noise in the data.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available