4.7 Article

Using a graph-based image segmentation algorithm for remote vital sign estimation and monitoring

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 12, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-19198-1

关键词

-

资金

  1. ENGINEERING AND PHYSICAL SCIENCES RESEARCH COUNCIL [EP/R014094/1]
  2. Royal Society [IEC\NSFC\181415]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This research proposes an image segmentation-based method for extracting vital signs from video and mm-wave radar signals. Compared to existing methods, this approach utilizes time-frequency spectrograms, resulting in improved accuracy and stability in heart rate and respiration rate extraction.
Reliable and contactless measurements of vital signs, such as respiration and heart rate, are still unmet needs in clinical and home settings. Mm-wave radar and video-based technologies are promising, but currently, the signal processing-based vital sign extraction methods are prone to body motion disruptions or illumination variations in the surrounding environment. Here we propose an image segmentation-based method to extract vital signs from the recorded video and mm-wave radar signals. The proposed method analyses time-frequency spectrograms obtained from Short-Time Fourier Transform rather than individual time-domain signals. This leads to much-improved robustness and accuracy of the heart rate and respiration rate extraction over existing methods. The experiments were conducted under pre- and post-exercise conditions and were repeated on multiple individuals. The results are evaluated by using four metrics against the gold standard contact-based measurements. Significant improvements were observed in terms of precision, accuracy, and stability. The performance was reflected by achieving an averaged Pearson correlation coefficient (PCC) of 93.8% on multiple subjects. We believe that the proposed estimation method will help address the needs for the increasingly popular remote cardiovascular sensing and diagnosing posed by Covid-19.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据