IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement · 2020 · 16 citations · 32 references
EngineeringBioengineeringBiomedical EngineeringBioinstrumentationBiomedical Signal ProcessingElectrophysiologyCardiac Signal ProcessingCardiovascular MonitoringElectrocardiographyHeart Rate VariabilityVital SignsVital Signs AssessmentHeart RateHeart Rate MonitoringHeart Rhythm AssessmentHeartbeat MonitoringHeartbeat SegmentationPrecisionSelf-calibrationSignals
This article presents an unsupervised, automated procedure for the analysis of Seismocardiogram (SCG) signals. SCG is a measure of chest vibrations, induced by the mechanical activity of the heart, which allows extracting relevant parameters, including heart rate (HR) and HR variability (HRV). An initial self-calibration is performed, solely based on the SCG traces, yielding a suitable heartbeat template (personalized for each subject). Then, beat detection and timing annotation are performed in two steps: at first, candidate beats are identified and validated, by means of suitably defined detection signals; then, precise timing annotation is achieved by best aligning such candidate beats to the previously extracted template. The algorithm has been validated on two separate data sets, featuring different acquisition setups: the first one is the publicly available Combined measurement of ECG, Breathing and Seismocardiogram (CEBS) database, reporting SCG signals from the subjects lying in supine position, whereas the second one was acquired using a custom setup, involving the sitting subjects. Results show good sensitivity and precision scores (98.5% and 98.6% for the CEBS database, and 99.1% and 97.9% for the Custom one, respectively). In addition, comparison with electrocardiogram (ECG) gold-standard is given, showing good agreement between the beat-to-beat intervals computed from SCG and the ECG gold-standard: on average, R <sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">2</sup> scores of 99.3% and 98.4% are achieved on the CEBS and Custom data sets, respectively. Furthermore, a low rms error is achieved on the CEBS and Custom data sets, amounting to 4.6 and 6.2 ms, respectively (i.e., 2.3 T <sub xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">s</sub> and 3.1 T <sub xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">s</sub> , where T <sub xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">s</sub> is the sampling period): such results are well compared with related literature. Validation on two different data sets indicates the robustness of the proposed methodology.
32
PhysioBank, PhysioToolkit, and PhysioNet
Ary L. Goldberger, Luı́s A. Nunes Amaral, Leon Glass et al. · Circulation · 2000 · 14.5K citations · Full text
A Real-Time QRS Detection Algorithm
Jiapu Pan, W.J. Tompkins · IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering · 1985 · 7.7K citations
Recent Advances in Seismocardiography
Amirtahà Taebi, Brian E. Solar, Andrew J. Bomar et al. · Vibration · 2019 · 269 citations · Full text
Continuous non‐contact vital sign monitoring in neonatal intensive care unit
Mauricio Villarroel, Alessandro Guazzi, João Jorge et al. · Healthcare Technology Letters · 2014 · 181 citations · Full text
Medicine, Pediatrics, Infant Health +16