| Literature DB >> 26703618 |
Seyed M A Salehizadeh1, Duy Dao2, Jeffrey Bolkhovsky3, Chae Cho4, Yitzhak Mendelson5, Ki H Chon6.
Abstract
Accurate estimation of heart rates from photoplethysmogram (PPG) signals during intense physical activity is a very challenging problem. This is because strenuous and high intensity exercise can result in severe motion artifacts in PPG signals, making accurate heart rate (HR) estimation difficult. In this study we investigated a novel technique to accurately reconstruct motion-corrupted PPG signals and HR based on time-varying spectral analysis. The algorithm is called Spectral filter algorithm for Motion Artifacts and heart rate reconstruction (SpaMA). The idea is to calculate the power spectral density of both PPG and accelerometer signals for each time shift of a windowed data segment. By comparing time-varying spectra of PPG and accelerometer data, those frequency peaks resulting from motion artifacts can be distinguished from the PPG spectrum. The SpaMA approach was applied to three different datasets and four types of activities: (1) training datasets from the 2015 IEEE Signal Process. Cup Database recorded from 12 subjects while performing treadmill exercise from 1 km/h to 15 km/h; (2) test datasets from the 2015 IEEE Signal Process. Cup Database recorded from 11 subjects while performing forearm and upper arm exercise. (3) Chon Lab dataset including 10 min recordings from 10 subjects during treadmill exercise. The ECG signals from all three datasets provided the reference HRs which were used to determine the accuracy of our SpaMA algorithm. The performance of the SpaMA approach was calculated by computing the mean absolute error between the estimated HR from the PPG and the reference HR from the ECG. The average estimation errors using our method on the first, second and third datasets are 0.89, 1.93 and 1.38 beats/min respectively, while the overall error on all 33 subjects is 1.86 beats/min and the performance on only treadmill experiment datasets (22 subjects) is 1.11 beats/min. Moreover, it was found that dynamics of heart rate variability can be accurately captured using the algorithm where the mean Pearson's correlation coefficient between the power spectral densities of the reference and the reconstructed heart rate time series was found to be 0.98. These results show that the SpaMA method has a potential for PPG-based HR monitoring in wearable devices for fitness tracking and health monitoring during intense physical activities.Entities:
Keywords: heart rate monitoring; motion artifact; photoplethysmogrphy; physical activities; signal processing
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26703618 PMCID: PMC4732043 DOI: 10.3390/s16010010
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
PPG datasets and experiments settings.
| Subject | Dataset | Activity Type | Pulse Oximeter Type | Subject’s Age/Sex |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1 (IEEE Cup) | Type (1) | Wrist: green LED (wavelength: 609 nm) | 18–38 years old; (All Male) |
| 2 | ||||
| 3 | ||||
| 4 | ||||
| 5 | ||||
| 6 | ||||
| 7 | ||||
| 8 | ||||
| 9 | ||||
| 10 | ||||
| 11 | ||||
| 12 | ||||
| 13 | 2 (IEEE Cup) | Type (2) | Wrist: green LED (wavelength: 515 nm) | 19–58 years old; (9 Male, 1 Female) |
| 14 | ||||
| 15 | ||||
| 16 | Type (3) | |||
| 17 | ||||
| 18 | ||||
| 19 | ||||
| 20 | Type (2) | |||
| 21 | Type (3) | |||
| 22 | ||||
| 23 | Type (2) | |||
| 24 | 3 (Chon Lab) | Type (4) | Forehead: Red and Infrared LED (wavelength: 660 nm, 940 nm) | 26–55 years old; (9 Male, 1 Female) |
| 25 | ||||
| 26 | ||||
| 27 | ||||
| 28 | ||||
| 29 | ||||
| 30 | ||||
| 31 | ||||
| 32 | ||||
| 33 |
The proposed SpaMA algorithm: HR and PPG signal reconstruction.
| Stage 1. Time-Varying Spectral analysis |
| 1.1. Down sample the PPG and Accelerometer signal to 20 Hz. |
| 1.2. Compute the power spectral density of both PPG and Accelerometers (0–10 Hz). |
| Stage 2. Spectral Filtering |
| 2.1. Assume HR to be in the frequency range of (0.5 Hz–3 Hz), this accounts for both low and high heart rates. |
| 2.2. The first highest three peaks and their corresponding frequencies in the PPG filtered spectrum are assumed to have HR information. |
| 2.3. Only the largest frequency peak of the accelerometers’ spectra is used for MA detection in stage 3. |
| Stage 3. Motion Artifact Detection |
| 3.1. Compare the frequencies of the three peaks in the PPG spectrum with the frequency of the largest peak in the accelerometers’ spectra. If the first or second largest peaks in the PPG spectrum are similar to that of the accelerometers’ peaks, then motion artifact is present in the PPG. |
| 3.2. If motion artifact is detected from 3.1, then the corresponding frequency peak (usually the first or second largest peak) in the PPG spectrum should be discarded. |
| Stage 4. Heart Rate Tracking and Extraction from PPG Spectrum |
| Case (1): From 3.1—if the spectrum is corrupted by movement and only the first largest peak is corrupted, then the HR frequency should be the frequency of the second peak in the spectrum. |
| Case (2): From 3.1—if the spectrum is corrupted by movement and both the first and second largest peaks have similar frequencies to those of the accelerometers’ peaks, then the HR frequency should be the frequency of the third peak in the spectrum. |
| Case (3): Due to a gap between the pulse oximeter and a subject’s skin, the HR frequency cannot be extracted from the spectrum and in this case the previous HR frequency is used or for offline implementation a cubic spline interpolation can be applied to fill in the missing HR information. |
| Stage 5. PPG Signal Reconstruction |
| 5.1. The PPG signal is reconstructed by using the amplitude, frequency and phase information corresponding to the HR components (extracted in stage 4) that are calculated from the spectrum at each window. |
| Heart Rate Variability Analysis |
| By using a sample-by-sample windowing strategy, HR can be extracted, from which dynamics of heart rate variability analysis can be obtained on the motion artifact-removed reconstructed HR time series. |
Figure 1Time-frequency spectra of recording #8 from dataset (1): (a) PPG signal; (b) simultaneous Accelerometer-Z signal; (c) (Top-Left) TF spectrum of PPG; (Top-Right) TF spectrum of ACC(x); (Bottom-Left) TF spectrum of ACC(y); (Bottom-Right) TF spectrum of ACC(z); all computed from stage (1) of the algorithm. Blue circles and letters represent movement elements in all four spectra.
Figure 2Spectral filtering. PPG time-frequency spectrum: Blue, Green and Red circles correspond to the first three highest peaks in the defined HR frequency range of (30–180 bpm), respectively, at each sliding window.
Figure 3Motion artifact detection in the PPG spectrum. (a) Filtered PPG spectrum with movement and HR components: Shaded yellow elements (A, B, C, D) represent motion frequency components in the PPG spectrum, and the light blue line is the reference HR from clean reference ECG signal, (b) Filtered PPG spectrum after removing motion artifact frequency components.
Figure 4Flowchart of HR tracking and extraction.
Figure 5Comparison of reconstructed HR obtained from SpaMA to reference HR obtained from simultaneous ECG recordings.
Figure 6PPG signal reconstruction. (a) Comparison between reconstructed PPG and original recording #8 from IEEE competition training dataset; (b) Zoomed-in version of (a).
Figure 7Heart rate variability analysis. (a) Time-domain comparison of reconstructed and reference HR; (b) Spectral comparison of heart rate variability between reconstructed HR and reference HR calculated from the reference ECG using Pan & Tompkins peak detection approach [32].
SpaMA algorithm performance comparison.
| Subject | Dataset | Activity Type | TROIKA | JOSS | WFPV | SpaMA | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| E1 | E2% | E1 | E2% | E1 | E2% | E1 | E2% | |||
| 1 | 2.87 | 2.18 | 1.33 | 1.19 | 1.23 | - | ||||
| 2 | 2.75 | 2.37 | 1.75 | 1.66 | 1.26 | - | 1.59 | 1.30 | ||
| 3 | 1.91 | 1.50 | 1.47 | 1.27 | 0.72 | - | ||||
| 4 | 2.25 | 2.00 | 1.48 | 1.41 | 0.98 | - | ||||
| 5 | 1.69 | 1.22 | 0.69 | 0.51 | 0.75 | - | ||||
| 6 | 3.16 | 2.51 | 1.32 | 1.09 | 0.91 | - | ||||
| 7 | 1.72 | 1.27 | 0.71 | 0.54 | 0.67 | - | ||||
| 8 | 1.83 | 1.47 | 0.56 | 0.47 | 0.91 | - | ||||
| 9 | 1.58 | 1.28 | 0.49 | 0.41 | 0.54 | - | ||||
| 10 | 4.00 | 2.49 | 3.81 | 2.43 | 2.61 | - | 2.63 | 1.59 | ||
| 11 | 1.96 | 1.29 | 0.78 | 0.51 | 0.94 | - | ||||
| 12 | 3.33 | 2.30 | 1.04 | 0.81 | 0.98 | - | 1.20 | 0.86 | ||
| mean ± std | 2.42 ± 0.8 | 1.82 ± 0.5 | 1.28 ± 0.9 | 1.02 ± 0.6 | 1.04 ± 0.5 | - | ||||
| 13 | 2 (IEEE Cup) | Type (2) | 3.58 | - | ||||||
| 14 | 9.66 | - | ||||||||
| 15 | 2.31 | - | 2.73 | 2.21 | ||||||
| 16 | Type (3) | 4.93 | - | |||||||
| 17 | 3.07 | - | ||||||||
| 18 | 2.67 | - | 4.46 | 3.23 | ||||||
| 19 | 3.11 | - | 3.58 | 3.98 | ||||||
| 20 | Type (2) | 2.10 | - | |||||||
| 21 | Type (3) | 3.22 | - | |||||||
| 22 | 4.35 | - | ||||||||
| 23 | Type (2) | 0.75 | - | 1.72 | 1.97 | |||||
| mean ± std | 3.61 ± 2.2 | - | ||||||||
| Type (1,2) mean ± std | 2.27 ± 2.0 | - | ||||||||
| 24 | 3 (Chon Lab) | Type (4) | ||||||||
| 25 | ||||||||||
| 26 | ||||||||||
| 27 | ||||||||||
| 28 | ||||||||||
| 29 | ||||||||||
| 30 | ||||||||||
| 31 | ||||||||||
| 32 | ||||||||||
| 33 | ||||||||||
| mean ± std | ||||||||||
| Total: mean ± std | ||||||||||
Figure 8Subject 9 (IEEE Competition Training Dataset). (a) Reconstructed HR vs. reference HR; (b) Spectral comparison of reconstructed HR and reference HR (estimated from reference ECG).
Figure 9Reconstructed HR vs. reference HR: (a) Subject 14 (IEEE Competition Test Dataset); (b) Subject 16 (IEEE Competition Test Dataset).
Figure 10Subject 30 (Chon Lab Dataset). (a) Reconstructed HR vs. reference HR; (b) Spectral comparison of reconstructed HR and reference HR (estimated from reference ECG).
Frequency domain HRV analysis comparison: PSD of SpaMA vs. reference.
| Subjects | Correlation | |
|---|---|---|
| LF 1 | HF | |
| 1 | 0.99 | 0.98 |
| 2 | 0.99 | 0.96 |
| 3 | 0.99 | 0.95 *,2 |
| 4 | 1.00 | 0.99 |
| 5 | 1.00 | 0.99 |
| 6 | 0.99 | 0.96 * |
| 7 | 0.98 | 0.92 * |
| 8 | 0.97 | 0.90 * |
| 9 | 1.00 | 0.99 |
| 10 | 1.00 | 0.99 |
| Mean | 0.99 | 0.96 |
1 LF is (0.04-0.15) Hz and HF is (0.15–0.4) Hz; (*) indicates significantly different (p-value > 0.05).
Time domain HRV analysis comparison: SpaMA vs. reference HRV.
| Subjects | SDNN | meanNN | RMSSD | pNN50 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SpaMA | Reference | SpaMA | Reference | SpaMA | Reference | SpaMA | Reference | |
| 1 | 2620.75 | 2566.47 | 10,481.89 | 10,480.72 | 33.24 | 18.05 | 0.001 | 0.020 |
| 2 | 2115.44 | 2079.58 | 9908.00 | 10,020.00 | 25.93 | 16.32 | 0.011 | 0.019 |
| 3 | 3173.73 | 3177.68 | 10,764.20 | 10,829.06 | 89.70 | 56.15 | 0.019 | 0.207 |
| 4 | 2517.78 | 2533.20 | 10,376.95 | 10,426.26 | 13.54 | 19.58 | 0.001 | 0.030 |
| 5 | 2654.42 | 2670.32 | 10,846.04 | 10,990.08 | 11.88 | 18.59 | 0.003 | 0.018 |
| 6 | 2012.53 | 1974.65 | 9737.35 | 9827.63 | 39.64 | 21.17 | 0.004 | 0.025 |
| 7 | 3056.36 | 2925.19 | 12,519.74 | 13,134.05 | 27.66 | 30.61 | 0.015 | 0.071 |
| 8 | 3133.76 | 2756.66 | 10,504.00 | 10,530.00 | 32.57 | 36.38 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 9 | 2195.08 | 2142.53 | 10,499.81 | 10,470.06 | 8.23 | 13.01 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 10 | 2454.57 | 2406.96 | 12,936.62 | 12,981.21 | 41.52 | 20.28 | 0.006 | 0.024 |
| >0.05 | >0.05 | >0.05 | >0.05 | |||||