| Literature DB >> 31492027 |
Min Peng1,2, Zhizhong Ding3, Lusheng Wang3,4, Xusheng Cheng3.
Abstract
Physiological information such as respiratory rate and heart rate in the sleep state can be used to evaluate the health condition of the sleeper. Traditional sleep monitoring systems need body contact and are intrusive, which limits their applicability. Thus, a comfortable sleep biosignals detection system with both high accuracy and low cost is important for health care. In this paper, we design a sleep biosignals detection system based on low-cost piezoelectric ceramic sensors. 18 piezoelectric ceramic sensors are deployed under the mattress to capture the pressure data. The appropriate sensor that captures respiration and heartbeat sensitively is selected by the proposed channel-selection algorithm. Then, we propose a dynamic smoothing algorithm to extract respiratory rate and heart rate using the selected data. The dynamic smoothing can separate heartbeat signals from respiratory signals with low complexity by dynamically choosing the smooth window, and it is suitable for real-time implementation in low-cost embedded systems. For comparison, wavelet analysis and ensemble empirical mode decomposition (EEMD) are performed in a personal computer (PC). Experimental results show that data collected by piezoelectric ceramic sensors can be used for respiratory-rate and heart-rate detection with high accuracy. In addition, the dynamic smoothing can achieve high accuracy close to wavelet analysis and EEMD, while it has much lower complexity.Entities:
Keywords: dynamic smoothing; ensemble empirical mode decomposition; heart rate; piezoelectric ceramic; respiratory rate; sleep biosignals detection; wavelet analysis
Year: 2019 PMID: 31492027 PMCID: PMC6767279 DOI: 10.3390/s19183843
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1The framework of the sleep biosignals detection system.
Figure 2The piezoelectric ceramic sensor.
Figure 3Piezoelectric ceramic sensors under the mattress and the embedded system.
Figure 4Illustration of data collected by different sensors. (a) Data from a sensor with weak signals; (b) Data from a sensor with strong signals.
Figure 5Illustration of standard ECG waves.
The results of the respiratory rate test with the time period of 60 s.
| Sets of Experiment | True Respiratory Rate | Wavelet | EEMD | Smoothing | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Results | Accuracy | Results | Accuracy | Results | Accuracy | ||
| 1 | 18 | 18 | 100% | 17 | 94.44% | 18 | 100% |
| 2 | 18 | 18 | 100% | 17 | 94.44% | 18 | 100% |
| 3 | 19 | 18 | 94.74% | 18 | 94.74% | 18 | 94.74% |
| 4 | 19 | 18 | 94.74% | 18 | 94.74% | 18 | 94.74% |
| 5 | 19 | 19 | 100% | 18 | 94.74% | 18 | 94.74% |
| 6 | 19 | 19 | 100% | 18 | 94.74% | 18 | 94.74% |
| 7 | 20 | 20 | 100% | 20 | 100% | 21 | 95.00% |
| 8 | 20 | 20 | 100% | 20 | 100% | 21 | 95.00% |
| 9 | 24 | 24 | 100% | 22 | 91.67% | 23 | 95.83% |
| 10 | 24 | 24 | 100% | 22 | 91.67% | 23 | 95.83% |
| Average | 98.95% | 95.12% | 96.06% | ||||
The results of the respiratory rate test with the time period of 30 s.
| Sets of Experiment | True Respiratory Rate | Wavelet | EEMD | Smoothing | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Results | Accuracy | Results | Accuracy | Results | Accuracy | ||
| 1 | 18 | 17 | 94.44% | 17 | 94.44% | 17 | 94.44% |
| 2 | 18 | 20 | 88.89% | 18 | 100% | 19 | 94.44% |
| 3 | 19 | 18 | 94.74% | 18 | 94.74% | 18 | 94.74% |
| 4 | 19 | 19 | 100% | 18 | 94.74% | 19 | 100% |
| 5 | 19 | 18 | 94.74% | 17 | 89.47% | 18 | 94.74% |
| 6 | 19 | 20 | 94.74% | 18 | 94.74% | 19 | 100% |
| 7 | 20 | 19 | 95.00% | 20 | 100% | 19 | 95.00% |
| 8 | 20 | 20 | 100% | 20 | 100% | 21 | 95.00% |
| 9 | 24 | 24 | 100% | 14 | 58.33% | 24 | 100% |
| 10 | 24 | 24 | 100% | 22 | 91.67% | 22 | 91.67% |
| Average | 96.25% | 91.81% | 96.00% | ||||
The results of the respiratory rate test with the time period of 10 s.
| Sets of Experiment | True Respiratory Rate | Wavelet | EEMD | Smoothing | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Results | Accuracy | Results | Accuracy | Results | Accuracy | ||
| 1 | 18 | 25 | 61.11% | 8 | 44.44% | 19 | 94.44% |
| 2 | 18 | 18 | 100% | 17 | 94.44% | 19 | 94.44% |
| 3 | 19 | 19 | 100% | 20 | 94.74% | 18 | 94.74% |
| 4 | 19 | 17 | 89.47% | 23 | 78.95% | 19 | 100% |
| 5 | 19 | 20 | 94.74% | 18 | 94.74% | 21 | 89.47% |
| 6 | 19 | 18 | 94.74% | 17 | 89.47% | 19 | 100% |
| 7 | 20 | 21 | 95.00% | 20 | 100% | 22 | 90.00% |
| 8 | 20 | 19 | 95.00% | 22 | 90.00% | 23 | 85.00% |
| 9 | 24 | 23 | 95.83% | 21 | 87.50% | 26 | 91.67% |
| 10 | 24 | 24 | 100% | 21 | 87.50% | 25 | 95.83% |
| Average | 92.59% | 86.18% | 93.56% | ||||
Figure 6An illustration of original signals and heartbeat signals obtained by different methods. (a) Original signals captured by the piezoelectric ceramic sensor, (b) Heartbeat signals obtained by Wavelet analysis, (c) Heartbeat signals obtained by EEMD, (d) Heartbeat signals obtained by Dynamic smoothing, (e) Heartbeat signals obtained by PC-80B.
The results of the heart-rate test with the time period of 60 s.
| Sets of Experiment | True Heart Rate | Wavelet | EEMD | Smoothing | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Results | Accuracy | Results | Accuracy | Results | Accuracy | ||
| 1 | 70 | 70 | 100% | 71 | 98.57% | 68 | 97.14% |
| 2 | 70 | 70 | 100% | 71 | 98.57% | 68 | 97.14% |
| 3 | 75 | 70 | 93.33% | 70 | 93.33% | 68 | 90.67% |
| 4 | 75 | 70 | 93.33% | 70 | 93.33% | 68 | 90.67% |
| 5 | 70 | 71 | 98.57% | 70 | 100% | 69 | 98.57% |
| 6 | 70 | 71 | 98.57% | 70 | 100% | 69 | 98.57% |
| 7 | 73 | 73 | 100% | 71 | 97.26% | 71 | 97.26% |
| 8 | 73 | 73 | 100% | 71 | 97.26% | 71 | 97.26% |
| 9 | 73 | 72 | 98.63% | 67 | 91.78% | 67 | 91.78% |
| 10 | 73 | 72 | 98.63% | 67 | 91.78% | 67 | 91.78% |
| Average | 98.11% | 96.19% | 95.08% | ||||
The results of the heart-rate test with the time period of 30 s.
| Sets of Experiment | True Heart Rate | Wavelet | EEMD | Smoothing | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Results | Accuracy | Results | Accuracy | Results | Accuracy | ||
| 1 | 70 | 67 | 95.71% | 67 | 95.71% | 66 | 94.29% |
| 2 | 70 | 72 | 97.14% | 73 | 95.71% | 79 | 87.14% |
| 3 | 75 | 70 | 93.33% | 69 | 92.00% | 67 | 89.33% |
| 4 | 75 | 70 | 93.33% | 71 | 94.67% | 69 | 92.00% |
| 5 | 70 | 68 | 97.14% | 67 | 95.71% | 67 | 95.71% |
| 6 | 70 | 73 | 95.71% | 75 | 92.86% | 72 | 97.14% |
| 7 | 73 | 72 | 98.63% | 67 | 91.78% | 71 | 97.26% |
| 8 | 73 | 76 | 95.89% | 73 | 100% | 72 | 98.63% |
| 9 | 73 | 73 | 100% | 70 | 95.89% | 69 | 94.52% |
| 10 | 73 | 78 | 93.15% | 64 | 87.67% | 65 | 89.04% |
| Average | 96.01% | 94.20% | 93.51% | ||||
The results of the heart-rate test with the time period of 10 s.
| Sets of Experiment | True Heart Rate | Wavelet | EEMD | Smoothing | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Results | Accuracy | Results | Accuracy | Results | Accuracy | ||
| 1 | 70 | 80 | 85.71% | 78 | 88.57% | 75 | 92.86% |
| 2 | 70 | 73 | 95.71% | 74 | 94.29% | 75 | 92.86% |
| 3 | 75 | 68 | 90.67% | 68 | 90.67% | 77 | 97.33% |
| 4 | 75 | 83 | 89.33% | 83 | 89.33% | 66 | 88.00% |
| 5 | 70 | 71 | 98.57% | 68 | 97.14% | 68 | 97.14% |
| 6 | 70 | 78 | 88.57% | 79 | 87.14% | 73 | 95.71% |
| 7 | 73 | 73 | 100% | 69 | 94.52% | 69 | 94.52% |
| 8 | 73 | 71 | 97.26% | 68 | 93.15% | 73 | 100% |
| 9 | 73 | 73 | 100% | 70 | 95.89% | 74 | 98.63% |
| 10 | 73 | 85 | 83.56% | 62 | 84.93% | 56 | 76.71% |
| Average | 92.94% | 91.56% | 93.38% | ||||
Quantitative comparisons of time complexity with N=1000.
| Algorithms | Multiplications | Additions | Comparisons | Total Number |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wavelet analysis | 111,795 | 123,589 | 4000 | 239,384 |
| EEMD | 2,700,000 | 3,609,000 | 3,604,000 | 9,913,000 |
| Dynamic Smoothing | 3001 | 207,040 | 4000 | 214,041 |
Quantitative comparisons of space complexity with N = 1000.
| Algorithms | Memory Requirements (Byte) |
|---|---|
| Wavelet analysis | 170,000 |
| EEMD | 46,000 |
| Dynamic Smoothing | 8000 |