4.7 Article

A two-step pre-processing tool to remove Gaussian and ectopic noise for heart rate variability analysis

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 12, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-21776-2

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Artifacts in the ECG affect the analysis of heart rate variability. Current preprocessing methods primarily focus on ectopic beats and neglect technical issues. This study introduces a two-step preprocessing approach to eliminate technical and physiological artifacts separately. The results show that the performance of this preprocessing tool is good and most HRV measures are sensitive to both types of noise.
Artifacts in the Electrocardiogram (ECG) degrade the quality of the recorded signal and are not conducive to heart rate variability (HRV) analysis. The two types of noise most often found in ECG recordings are technical and physiological artifacts. Current preprocessing methods primarily attend to ectopic beats but do not consider technical issues that affect the ECG. A secondary aim of this study was to investigate the effect of increasing increments of artifacts on 24 of the most used HRV measures. A two-step preprocessing approach for denoising HRV is introduced which targets each type of noise separately. First, the technical artifacts in the ECG are eliminated by applying complete ensemble empirical mode decomposition with adaptive noise. The second step removes physiological artifacts from the HRV signal using a combination filter of single dependent rank order mean and an adaptive filtering algorithm. The performance of the two-step pre-processing tool showed a high correlation coefficient of 0.846 and RMSE value of 7.69 x 10(-5) for 6% of added ectopic beats and 6 dB Gaussian noise. All HRV measures studied except HF peak and LF peak are significantly affected by both types of noise. Frequency measures of Total power, HF power, and LF power and fragmentation measures; PAS, PIP, and PSS are the most sensitive to both types of noise.

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