4.5 Article

A Comparison of Single Channel Fetal ECG Extraction Methods

Journal

ANNALS OF BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING
Volume 42, Issue 6, Pages 1340-1353

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10439-014-0993-9

Keywords

Fetal ECG; Reservoir computing; Template subtraction; Adaptive noise canceller

Funding

  1. UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
  2. Balliol French Anderson Scholarship Fund
  3. MindChild Medical Inc. North Andover, MA
  4. Wellcome Trust [098461/Z/12/Z]
  5. RCUK Digital Economy Programme [EP/G036861/1]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The abdominal electrocardiogram (ECG) provides a non-invasive method for monitoring the fetal cardiac activity in pregnant women. However, the temporal and frequency overlap between the fetal ECG (FECG), the maternal ECG (MECG) and noise results in a challenging source separation problem. This work seeks to compare temporal extraction methods for extracting the fetal signal and estimating fetal heart rate. A novel method for MECG cancelation using an echo state neural network (ESN) based filtering approach was compared with the least mean square (LMS), the recursive least square (RLS) adaptive filter and template subtraction (TS) techniques. Analysis was performed using real signals from two databases composing a total of 4 h 22 min of data from nine pregnant women with 37,452 reference fetal beats. The effects of preprocessing the signals was empirically evaluated. The results demonstrate that the ESN based algorithm performs best on the test data with an F1 measure of 90.2% as compared to the LMS (87.9%), RLS (88.2%) and the TS (89.3%) techniques. Results suggest that a higher baseline wander high pass cut-off frequency than traditionally used for FECG analysis significantly increases performance for all evaluated methods. Open source code for the benchmark methods are made available to allow comparison and reproducibility on the public domain 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