| Literature DB >> 31159218 |
Fabian Michler1, Kilin Shi2, Sven Schellenberger3, Tobias Steigleder4, Anke Malessa5, Laura Hameyer6, Nina Neumann7, Fabian Lurz8, Christoph Ostgathe9, Robert Weigel10, Alexander Koelpin11.
Abstract
Vital parameters are key indicators for the assessment of health. Conventional methods rely on direct contact with the patients' skin and can hence cause discomfort and reduce autonomy. This article presents a bistatic 24 GHz radar system based on an interferometric six-port architecture and features a precision of 1 µm in distance measurements. Placed at a distance of 40 cm in front of the human chest, it detects vibrations containing respiratory movements, pulse waves and heart sounds. For the extraction of the respiration rate, time-domain approaches like autocorrelation, peaksearch and zero crossing rate are compared to the Fourier transform, while template matching and a hidden semi-Markov model are utilized for the detection of the heart rate from sphygmograms and heart sounds. A medical study with 30 healthy volunteers was conducted to collect 5.5 h of data, where impedance cardiogram and electrocardiogram were used as gold standard for synchronously recording respiration and heart rate, respectively. A low root mean square error for the breathing rate (0.828 BrPM) and a high overall F1 score for heartbeat detection (93.14%) could be achieved using the proposed radar system and signal processing.Entities:
Keywords: continuous wave radar; remote sensing; six-port interferometry; vital parameter measurement
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31159218 PMCID: PMC6603780 DOI: 10.3390/s19112492
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Schematic illustration of the human heart [33].
Figure 2Simplified illustration of the physical motion during inspiration and expiration [32].
Figure 3Block diagram of the vital parameter radar sensing system.
Figure 4The six-port receiver: Theoretic concept and planar realization.
Figure 5Antenna layout and radiation patterns of the series-fed patch array. (a) Antenna layout used for the field simulations; (b) Simulated (dashed) and measured (solid) radiation pattern in horizontal plane; (c) Simulated (dashed) and measured (solid) radiation pattern in vertical plane at inclination.
Figure 6Photographs of prototype and validation systems. (a) Photograph of the radar system prototyp; (b) Photograph of the study setup.
Figure 7A flowchart showing the overall signal processing steps.
Figure 8Comparison of low- and bandpass filtered respiration signals. (b) Reference (dashed) and radar (solid) respiration signal after applying a lowpass filter; (b) Reference (dashed) and radar (solid) respiration signal after applying a bandpass filter.
Figure 9Segmentation of a radar heart sound signal using the hidden semi-Markov model (HSMM) algorithm [43]. The segmentation procedure predicts four states (blue line): First heart sound (S1), systole (Sys.), second heart sound (S2) and diastole (Dia.). The ECG R-peaks are plotted as a visual reference.
Figure 10Measurement of precision and cumulative distance error of the presented radar system.
Results of respiration analysis. Shown are the maximum correlation value and RMSE values of the four respiration rate determination methods. In addition, the respiration rates of the radar and reference signals are given.
| ID |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0.952 | 14 | 0.224 | 0.921 | 2.855 | 0.063 | 7.92 | 8.28 |
| 2 | 0.938 | –2 | 0.919 | 0.511 | 1.422 | 0.407 | 12.25 | 12.38 |
| 3 | 0.958 | 40 | 0.246 | 0.575 | 1.130 | 0.210 | 4.77 | 4.62 |
| 4 | 0.975 | 17 | 1.274 | 0.106 | 1.078 | 0.161 | 10.86 | 10.86 |
| 5 | 0.979 | –12 | 0.038 | 0.364 | 1.580 | 1.389 | 8.95 | 8.99 |
| 6 | 0.916 | 9 | 3.866 | 2.591 | 4.603 | 4.173 | 11.54 | 12.59 |
| 7 | 0.845 | 21 | 2.451 | 1.245 | 2.973 | 0.286 | 6.01 | 6.48 |
| 8 | 0.953 | 5 | 3.061 | 1.169 | 4.424 | 3.389 | 13.08 | 13.52 |
| 9 | 0.940 | 30 | 2.754 | 1.075 | 1.523 | 0.299 | 8.83 | 9.08 |
| 10 | 0.905 | 7 | 0.087 | 0.100 | 0.601 | 0.131 | 11.99 | 11.99 |
| 11 | 0.986 | 19 | 0.048 | 0.998 | 1.114 | 0.107 | 17.08 | 17.26 |
| 12 | 0.937 | 15 | 0.095 | 0.472 | 0.995 | 0.151 | 9.75 | 9.65 |
| 13 | 0.990 | -6 | 1.570 | 0.043 | 1.994 | 0.640 | 11.02 | 11.03 |
| 14 | 0.887 | 12 | 0.059 | 0.083 | 0.058 | 0.141 | 13.35 | 13.38 |
| 15 | 0.965 | 8 | 0.983 | 0.232 | 0.230 | 0.123 | 8.38 | 8.45 |
| 16 | 0.965 | 7 | 0.052 | 0.160 | 0.114 | 0.100 | 15.27 | 15.25 |
| 17 | 0.775 | 31 | 1.035 | 1.026 | 2.497 | 3.423 | 13.81 | 13.50 |
| 18 | 0.837 | 18 | 2.774 | 2.114 | 1.332 | 4.000 | 12.88 | 12.53 |
| 19 | 0.940 | 0 | 0.760 | 0.853 | 1.418 | 0.903 | 13.25 | 13.36 |
| 20 | 0.968 | 14 | 0.116 | 0.139 | 0.111 | 0.123 | 10.52 | 10.48 |
| 21 | 0.979 | 0 | 0.113 | 0.409 | 8.527 | 0.045 | 17.83 | 17.91 |
| 22 | 0.472 | 8 | 5.149 | 4.087 | 5.615 | 6.619 | 16.79 | 13.84 |
| 23 | 0.988 | 12 | 0.701 | 0.068 | 0.068 | 0.104 | 8.68 | 8.67 |
| 24 | 0.884 | 17 | 0.127 | 0.575 | 0.107 | 0.195 | 13.21 | 13.10 |
| 25 | 0.914 | 59 | 0.949 | 0.487 | 3.098 | 0.957 | 12.52 | 12.43 |
| 26 | 0.978 | 10 | 1.282 | 0.085 | 4.323 | 0.086 | 12.48 | 12.46 |
| 27 | 0.983 | 12 | 0.107 | 0.053 | 1.616 | 0.100 | 10.63 | 10.61 |
| 28 | 0.972 | 21 | 0.380 | 0.874 | 2.694 | 0.436 | 6.32 | 5.96 |
| 29 | 0.884 | 46 | 0.300 | 1.005 | 0.738 | 0.293 | 10.37 | 10.54 |
| 30 | 0.768 | 10 | 3.163 | 2.429 | 4.391 | 4.172 | 11.04 | 11.81 |
| Mean | 0.914 | 14.7 | 1.156 | 0.828 | 2.108 | 1.108 | 11.38 | 11.37 |
| Std. dev. | 0.103 | 14.9 | 1.352 | 0.919 | 1.971 | 1.722 | 3.15 | 3.03 |
In points, positive: Radar shifted to left; negative: Radar shifted to right. In BrPM.
Final scores for the heartbeat analysis. The micro mean stands for the direct mean overall test subjects, whereas the macro mean is calculated from the sum of all true positive (TP), false positive (FP) and false negative (FN) values.
| ID | F1 Score (%) | Sensitivity (%) | Precision (%) | TP | FP | FN | # R-Peaks ECG | # Pred. HB | Meas. Time (s) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 95.91 | 95.97 | 95.84 | 691 | 30 | 29 | 729 | 721 | 607.6 |
| 2 | 98.27 | 98.13 | 98.41 | 682 | 11 | 13 | 721 | 694 | 622.4 |
| 3 | 96.86 | 95.80 | 97.94 | 570 | 12 | 25 | 597 | 583 | 601.4 |
| 4 | 98.00 | 98.00 | 98.00 | 685 | 14 | 14 | 702 | 699 | 603.1 |
| 5 | 78.81 | 77.81 | 79.84 | 491 | 124 | 140 | 643 | 617 | 610.1 |
| 6 | 97.24 | 97.33 | 97.15 | 546 | 16 | 15 | 571 | 563 | 610.9 |
| 7 | 74.46 | 74.10 | 74.83 | 452 | 152 | 158 | 647 | 604 | 634.9 |
| 8 | 99.04 | 98.95 | 99.12 | 565 | 5 | 6 | 588 | 572 | 618.6 |
| 9 | 98.73 | 98.31 | 99.15 | 581 | 5 | 10 | 641 | 586 | 649.4 |
| 10 | 85.56 | 85.28 | 85.84 | 394 | 65 | 68 | 491 | 459 | 639.1 |
| 11 | 96.60 | 95.73 | 97.49 | 583 | 15 | 26 | 660 | 601 | 648.9 |
| 12 | 83.79 | 83.65 | 83.92 | 522 | 100 | 102 | 675 | 622 | 648.5 |
| 13 | 99.56 | 99.50 | 99.62 | 791 | 3 | 4 | 801 | 794 | 725.6 |
| 14 | 50.06 | 49.81 | 50.32 | 395 | 390 | 398 | 798 | 785 | 603.5 |
| 15 | 99.14 | 99.06 | 99.22 | 635 | 5 | 6 | 696 | 641 | 648.5 |
| 16 | 97.78 | 97.58 | 97.98 | 484 | 10 | 12 | 504 | 495 | 610.6 |
| 17 | 84.92 | 89.06 | 81.15 | 521 | 121 | 64 | 589 | 643 | 603.3 |
| 18 | 83.41 | 83.41 | 83.41 | 538 | 107 | 107 | 686 | 645 | 636.0 |
| 19 | 95.94 | 95.64 | 96.24 | 461 | 18 | 21 | 484 | 481 | 603.1 |
| 20 | 99.84 | 99.67 | 100.00 | 610 | 0 | 2 | 653 | 610 | 640.2 |
| 21 | 91.01 | 90.80 | 91.21 | 602 | 58 | 61 | 678 | 662 | 613.9 |
| 22 | 95.37 | 95.20 | 95.54 | 535 | 25 | 27 | 619 | 560 | 659.8 |
| 23 | 99.68 | 99.51 | 99.84 | 614 | 1 | 3 | 634 | 616 | 678.9 |
| 24 | 99.93 | 99.85 | 100.00 | 678 | 0 | 1 | 690 | 678 | 610.5 |
| 25 | 98.97 | 98.97 | 98.97 | 671 | 7 | 7 | 697 | 678 | 616.9 |
| 26 | 99.29 | 99.29 | 99.29 | 704 | 5 | 5 | 746 | 711 | 821.0 |
| 27 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 593 | 0 | 0 | 619 | 593 | 627.9 |
| 28 | 97.87 | 97.49 | 98.25 | 505 | 9 | 13 | 528 | 514 | 611.9 |
| 29 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 598 | 0 | 0 | 615 | 598 | 615.9 |
| 30 | 98.33 | 97.85 | 98.82 | 501 | 6 | 11 | 536 | 507 | 626.6 |
| Micro mean | 93.14% | 93.06% | 93.25% | 573.3 | 43.8 | 44.9 | 641.3 | 617.7 | 635.0 |
| Std. dev. | 10.74% | 10.72% | 10.82% | 94.1 | 78.8 | 79.1 | 82.3 | 82.2 | 44.2 |
| Macro mean | 92.82% | 92.73% | 92.90% |
Number of heartbeats according to reference ECG; Number of predicted heartbeats; Measurement time of test subject.
Mean values for all test subjects after excluding test subject #14.
| F1 Score (%) | Sensitivity (%) | Precision (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Micro mean | 94.63 | 94.55 | 94.73 |
| Std. dev. | 7.14 | 7.07 | 7.29 |
| Macro mean | 94.72 | 94.65 | 94.79 |
Comparison of this work to the current state-of-the-art.
| Number of Measured Subjects | Measured Time per Subject (min) | RMSE of Heart Rate (ms) | Correlation of Respiration Rate | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| this work | 30 | 10 | 26.07 | 0.914 |
| [ | 11 | >14 | 44.2 | – |
| [ | 1 | 20 | >200 | – |
| [ | 5 | 10 | 45 | – |
| [ | 5 | 20 | >113.2 | – |
| [ | 1 | 5 | – | 0.958 |
| [ | 1 | 5 | – | 0.9198 |
| [ | 10 | 1.7 | – | 0.45 a |
sensor as reference leads to poor correlation results.