| Literature DB >> 30654799 |
R Castaldo1,2, L Montesinos1, P Melillo3, C James1, L Pecchia4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This paper suggests a method to assess the extent to which ultra-short Heart Rate Variability (HRV) features (less than 5 min) can be considered as valid surrogates of short HRV features (nominally 5 min). Short term HRV analysis has been widely investigated for mental stress assessment, whereas the validity of ultra-short HRV features remains unclear. Therefore, this study proposes a method to explore the extent to which HRV excerpts can be shortened without losing their ability to automatically detect mental stress.Entities:
Keywords: Data-driven machine learning; Heart rate variability (HRV); Mental stress detection; Ultra-short term HRV analysis
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30654799 PMCID: PMC6335694 DOI: 10.1186/s12911-019-0742-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak ISSN: 1472-6947 Impact factor: 2.796
Fig. 1HRV processing workflow. ECG: Electrocardiogram; NN/RR is the ratio of the total RR intervals labelled as NN (normal-to-normal beats); short term: HRV is analyzed in 5 min excerpts; ultra-short term: HRV is analyzed in excerpts of 3, 2, 1 and 0.5 min length
Fig. 2Segmentation process. The ultra-short HRV features were extracted from the central position of the 5 min NN excerpts (left-hand side). This procedure was repeated for the shortest significant length of NN excerpts. The shortest excerpts were extracted from different positions, without overlapping (right-hand side)
HRV feature trends
| HRV Features | 5 min | 3 min | 2 min | 1 min | 30 sec |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MeanNN | ↓↓ | ↓↓ | ↓↓ | ↓↓ | ↓↓ |
| StdNN | ↓↓ | ↓↓ | ↓↓ | ↓↓ | ↓↓ |
| MeanHR | ↑↑ | ↑↑ | ↑↑ | ↑↑ | ↑↑ |
| Std HR | ↑↑ | ↑↑ | ↑↑ | ↑↑ | ↑↑ |
| RMSSD | ↑ | ↑ | ↑ | ↑ | ↓ |
| NN50 | ↑ | ↑ | ↑ | ↑ | ↑ |
| pNN50 | ↓ | ↓ | ↑ | ↓ | ↓ |
| LF | ↓↓ | ↓↓ | ↓↓ | – | – |
| HF | ↓↓ | ↓↓ | ↓↓ | ↓↓ | – |
| LF/HF | ↓↓ | ↓↓ | ↓↓ | – | – |
| TotPow | ↓↓ | ↓↓ | ↓↓ | – | – |
| SD1 | ↑ | ↑ | ↑ | ↑ | ↓ |
| SD2 | ↓↓ | ↓↓ | ↓↓ | ↓↓ | ↓↓ |
| ApEn | ↓↓ | ↓↓ | – | – | – |
| SampEn | ↓↓ | ↓↓ | ↓↓ | ↓↓ | – |
| D2 | ↓↓ | ↓↓ | ↓↓ | ↓↓ | – |
| dfa1 | ↓↓ | ↓↓ | ↓↓ | ↓↓ | – |
| dfa2 | ↑ | ↑ | ↑ | ↓ | – |
| RPlmean | ↑↑ | ↑↑ | ↑↑ | ↑ | – |
| RPlmax | ↓↓ | ↓↓ | ↓ | ↑ | – |
| REC | ↑↑ | ↑↑ | ↑↑ | ↑ | – |
| RPadet | ↑↑ | ↑ | ↑ | ↓ | – |
| ShanEn | ↑↑ | ↑↑ | ↑↑ | ↑↑ | – |
Trend ↓↓ (↑↑): significantly lower (higher) under stress (p < 0.05), ↓(↑) lower (higher) under stress (p > 0.05), − not computable
Fig. 3Methodological workflow for the identification of the good surrogates. This process was repeated for each HRV feature at each time scale. The complete list of feature computed at each time scale is reported in Table 1. p: p-value; trend analysis: ↓↓ (↑↑): significantly lower (higher) under stress (p < .05), ↓(↑) lower (higher) under stress (p > .05); rho: Spearman’s rank coefficient, prho: Spearman’s rank p-value
Fig. 4Framework of feature selection
Correlation analysis of ultra-short HRV features vs equivalent short ones
| Rest Phase | Stress Phase | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HRV Features | 3 vs 5 min | 2 vs 5 min | 1 vs 5 min | 30 s vs 5 min | 3 vs 5 min | 2 vs 5 min | 1 vs 5 min | 30 s vs 5 min |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 0.640 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 0.635 |
|
|
| 0.696 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| – | – |
|
| – | – |
|
|
|
|
| – |
|
|
| – |
|
|
|
| – | – |
|
| – | – |
|
|
|
| – | – |
|
| – | – |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 0.694 |
|
|
| 0.169 | – | – |
|
| – | – |
|
|
| 0.666 | 0.681 | – |
|
| 0.599 | – |
|
|
| 0.674 | 0.330 | – |
|
|
| – |
|
| 0.661 | 0.687 | 0.637 | – |
|
|
| – |
|
| 0.633 | 0.611 | 0.673 | – |
| 0.563 | 0.485 | – |
|
|
|
| 0.645 | – |
|
| 0.503 | – |
|
|
| 0.588 | 0.583 | – |
|
| 0.678 | – |
|
|
| 0.643 | 0.608 | – |
| 0.689 | 0.513 | – |
|
|
| 0.645 | 0.495 | – |
|
| 0.642 | – |
|
|
| 0.661 | 0.614 | – |
|
| 0.463 | – |
All the correlations resulted significant (prho < 0.05); in bold Spearman’s correlation coefficient (rho) greater than 0.7; −: not computable
Model performance measurements estimated on the test set (Folder 2) on 5 min excerpts
| Method | Parameters | AUC | SEN | SPE | ACC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MLP | LR = 0.3; ML = 0.2; NE = 500 | 98% | 100% | 88% | 94% |
| SVM | PolyKernel, E = 1.0 | 88% | 88% | 88% | 88% |
| C4.5 | CF = 0.25; ML = 2 | 94% | 88% | 100% | 94% |
| IBK | K = 3 | 99% | 88% | 100% | 94% |
| LDA |
| 98% | 88% | 100% | 94% |
MLP Multilayer Perceptron, SVM Support Vector Machine, C4.5 decision trees, IBK Neighbor Search, LDA Linear Discriminate Analysis, AUC area under the curve, SEN sensitivity, SPE specificity, ACC accuracy
Model performance measurements on different time-scale excerpts
| Duration | AUC | SEN | SPE | ACC |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 min | 97% | 94% | 94% | 94% |
| 2 min | 93% | 94% | 88% | 91% |
| 1 min | 93% | 82% | 94% | 88% |
AUC area under the curve, SEN sensitivity, SPE specificity, ACC accuracy