| Literature DB >> 26457710 |
Inma Mohino-Herranz1, Roberto Gil-Pita2, Javier Ferreira3,4, Manuel Rosa-Zurera5, Fernando Seoane6,7.
Abstract
Determining the stress level of a subject in real time could be of special interest in certain professional activities to allow the monitoring of soldiers, pilots, emergency personnel and other professionals responsible for human lives. Assessment of current mental fitness for executing a task at hand might avoid unnecessary risks. To obtain this knowledge, two physiological measurements were recorded in this work using customized non-invasive wearable instrumentation that measures electrocardiogram (ECG) and thoracic electrical bioimpedance (TEB) signals. The relevant information from each measurement is extracted via evaluation of a reduced set of selected features. These features are primarily obtained from filtered and processed versions of the raw time measurements with calculations of certain statistical and descriptive parameters. Selection of the reduced set of features was performed using genetic algorithms, thus constraining the computational cost of the real-time implementation. Different classification approaches have been studied, but neural networks were chosen for this investigation because they represent a good tradeoff between the intelligence of the solution and computational complexity. Three different application scenarios were considered. In the first scenario, the proposed system is capable of distinguishing among different types of activity with a 21.2% probability error, for activities coded as neutral, emotional, mental and physical. In the second scenario, the proposed solution distinguishes among the three different emotional states of neutral, sadness and disgust, with a probability error of 4.8%. In the third scenario, the system is able to distinguish between low mental load and mental overload with a probability error of 32.3%. The computational cost was calculated, and the solution was implemented in commercially available Android-based smartphones. The results indicate that execution of such a monitoring solution is negligible compared to the nominal computational load of current smartphones.Entities:
Keywords: ECG; bioimpedance; ergonomics; physiological measurements; smart textiles; smartphone; stress detection
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26457710 PMCID: PMC4634391 DOI: 10.3390/s151025607
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Textrode.
Figure 2Vest: (A) front view; (B) back view.
Figure 3Vest: (A) anti-slip band; (B) adjustable fastener.
Figure 4ECGZ2 device design: (A) left device view; (B) right device view.
Figure 5General scheme of the classifier.
Figure 6ECG-based feature extraction scheme.
List of parameters and the number of operations per second required.
| Parameter | |
|---|---|
| Mean | 300 |
| Standard deviation | 1201 |
| Trimmed mean of 25% | 27,805 |
| Median | 27,580 |
| Skewness | 2101 |
| Kurtosis | 2710 |
| Maximum | 300 |
| Minimum | 300 |
| Percentile 25% | 27,580 |
| Percentile 75% | 27,580 |
| Geometric mean | 3901 |
| Harmonic mean | 3301 |
| Mean absolute deviation | 1200 |
| Baseline | 550 |
Figure 7Thoracic electrical bioimpedance (TEB)-based feature extraction scheme.
Figure 8Multilayer perceptron scheme.
Figure 9Scheme describing the stages of the experiment used to generate the database.
Average values for the eight IF signals in the different classes defined in the three analyses: type of activity, emotional state and mental activity.
| IF Signal | Analysis 1 | Analysis 2 | Analysis 3 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Type of Activity | Emotional State | Mental Activity | |||||||
| Neutral | Emotional | Mental | Physical | Neutral | Sad | Disgust | Low | High | |
|
| 4.92 | 4.93 | 4.92 | 5.36 | 4.92 | 4.93 | 4.92 | 4.92 | 4.92 |
|
| 28.17 | 29.62 | 27.69 | 24.75 | 27.95 | 29.53 | 28.46 | 28.76 | 27.59 |
|
| 0.32 | 0.40 | 0.45 | 1.20 | 0.32 | 0.43 | 0.43 | 0.44 | 0.45 |
|
| 72.07 | 70.99 | 74.62 | 130.43 | 72.10 | 70.21 | 71.12 | 74.37 | 74.77 |
|
| 5.61 | 6.33 | 5.74 | 7.89 | 5.60 | 5.74 | 6.89 | 5.75 | 5.72 |
|
| 19.44 | 20.10 | 20.50 | 27.17 | 19.45 | 19.85 | 20.27 | 20.97 | 20.46 |
|
| 0.09 | 0.16 | 0.27 | 0.67 | 0.09 | 0.09 | 0.23 | 0.19 | 0.25 |
|
| 74.36 | 71.99 | 74.30 | 93.86 | 74.03 | 72.62 | 71.80 | 74.34 | 74.35 |
Figure 10Box plot of the probability of error obtained by the classifiers for different values of the maximum number of operations per second () particularized for Analysis 1: type of activity.
Confusion matrix and percentage of classification error (error probability) for each class using a maximum number of 80,000 operations per second (), particularized for Analysis 1: type of activity.
| True Class | Predicted Class | % Error Probability | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Neutral | Emotional | Mental | Physical | ||
| Neutral | 971 | 3 | 146 | 0 | 13.30% |
| Emotional | 12 | 881 | 199 | 28 | 21.34% |
| Mental | 128 | 374 | 604 | 14 | 46.07% |
| Physical | 0 | 37 | 10 | 1073 | 4.20% |
| Average | 21.23% | ||||
Figure 11Box plot of the probability of error obtained by the classifiers for different values of the maximum number of operations per second () particularized for Analysis 2: emotional state.
Confusion matrix and percentage of classification error (error probability) for each class using a maximum number of 60,000 operations per second (), particularized for Analysis 2: emotional state.
| True Class | Predicted Class | % Error Probability | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Neutral | Sadness | Disgust | ||
| Neutral | 1584 | 16 | 0 | 1.00% |
| Sadness | 12 | 1496 | 92 | 6.50% |
| Disgust | 0 | 109 | 1491 | 6.81% |
| Average | 4.77% | |||
Figure 12Box plot of the probability of error obtained by the classifiers for different values of the maximum number of operations per second () particularized for Analysis 3: mental activity.
Confusion matrix and percentage of classification error (error probability) for each class using a maximum number of 80,000 operations per second (), particularized for Analysis 3: mental activity.
| True Class | Predicted Class | % Error Probability | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Low Mental Load | High Mental Load | ||
| Low mental load | 572 | 308 | 35.00% |
| High mental load | 261 | 619 | 29.66% |
| Average | 32.33% | ||