| Literature DB >> 32455935 |
Lalit Mohan Goyal1, Mamta Mittal2, Ranjeeta Kaushik3, Amit Verma3, Iqbaldeep Kaur3, Sudipta Roy4, Tai-Hoon Kim5.
Abstract
Hiding data in electrocardiogram signals are a big challenge due to the embedded information that can hamper the accuracy of disease detection. On the other hand, hiding data into ECG signals provides more security for, and authenticity of, the patient's data. Some recent studies used non-blind watermarking techniques to embed patient information and data of a patient into ECG signals. However, these techniques are not robust against attacks with noise and show a low performance in terms of parameters such as peak signal to noise ratio (PSNR), normalized correlation (NC), mean square error (MSE), percentage residual difference (PRD), bit error rate (BER), structure similarity index measure (SSIM). In this study, an improved blind ECG-watermarking technique is proposed to embed the information of the patient's data into the ECG signals using curvelet transform. The Euclidean distance between every two curvelet coefficients was computed to cluster the curvelet coefficients and after this, data were embedded into the selected clusters. This was an improvement not only in terms of extracting a hidden message from the watermarked ECG signals, but also robust against image-processing attacks. Performance metrics of SSIM, NC, PSNR and BER were used to measure the superiority of presented work. KL divergence and PRD were also used to reveal data hiding in curvelet coefficients of ECG without disturbing the original signal. The simulation results also demonstrated that the clustering method in the curvelet domain provided the best performance-even when the hidden messages were large size.Entities:
Keywords: ECG; clustering; curvelet transform; performance metric; steganography
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32455935 PMCID: PMC7285281 DOI: 10.3390/s20102941
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Original 1-D electrocardiogram.
Figure 22-DECG image.
Figure 3Image of patient information.
Figure 4QRS detection (a) pulse train of the QRS on ECG signal (b) QRS on filtered signal (c) QRS on signal and noise level (black), signal level (red) and adaptive threshold (green).
Figure 5Watermarked ECG.
Performance of proposed techniques (Peak signal to noise ratio (PSNR),Normalized correlation (NC), Kullback–Leibler divergence (KL),Mean Square Error(MSE),Percentage residual difference (PRD),Bit error rate (BER),,Structure similarity index measure (SSIM).
| Sr. No. | ECG Signal | PSNR | NC | KL | MSE | PRD | BER | SSIM |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
| 66.825 | 1.00 | 0.0012 | 0.0011 | 0.0967 | 0.24 | 1.000 |
| 2 |
| 68.342 | 1.00 | 0.0009 | 0.0009 | 0.0653 | 0.194 | 1.00 |
| 3 |
| 70.043 | 1.00 | 0.0002 | 0.00043 | 0.021 | 0.142 | 1.00 |
| 4 |
| 69.8562 | 1.00 | 0.0005 | 0.0007 | 0.043 | 0.174 | 1.00 |
Performance of proposed techniques with different watermark sizes and clusters.
| Cluster | 0–1 | 0, 1 | 0, 1, 2 | 0, 1, 2, 3 | 0–7 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 32 × 32 | 64 × 64 | 80 × 80 | 100 × 100 | 128 × 128 |
|
| 84.5131 | 79.7489 | 83.6277 | 74.2855 | 66.8254 |
|
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
|
| 2.00 × 10−5 | 2.15 × 10−5 | 0.0001 | 0.0007 | 0.0012 |
|
| 7.67 × 10−5 | 7.26 × 10−5 | 0.0001 | 0.0005 | 0.0011 |
|
| 0.0421 | 0.0545 | 0.0494 | 0.0674 | 0.0967 |
|
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.011 | 0.214 |
|
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Figure 6Extracted patient information.
Quality of extracted patient’s information.
| Sr. No. | ECG Signal | Extracted Watermark | PSNR | NC | SSIM |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
|
| 65.31 | 1 | 0.911 |
| 2 |
|
| 65.89 | 1 | 0.934 |
| 3 |
|
| 64.983 | 1 | 0.974 |
| 4 |
|
| 64.9653 | 1 | 0.9832 |
Quality of extracted watermark after different image-processing operations.
| Operations | Gaussian Noise (0.01) | Salt & Pepper (0.01) | Rotation (5°) | Compression (5%) | Median Filter (3 × 3) | Cropping (5%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 43.6168 | 42.5698 | 41.49 | 38.2123 | 40.2738 | 32.1112 |
|
| 2.10 × 10−3 | 6.10 × 10−2 | 0.0421 | 0.0761 | 0.0213 | 0.1821 |
|
| 0.321 | 0.3786 | 0.4001 | 03,986 | 0.4543 | 0.5743 |
|
| 0.9992 | 0.9853 | 0.9798 | 0.9832 | 0.9783 | 0.9212 |
|
| 0.9732 | 0.9653 | 0.9422 | 0.9489 | 0.9183 | 0.8833 |
Figure 7Robustness of proposed techniques corresponding to different attacks.
Comparison of proposed technique with existing ECG techniques.
| Performance Metric | Watermark Size | PSNR | KL | MSE | BER | PRD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 67 × 67 (4489 bits) | 50.44 | 0.15 | 0 | 0 | 0.59 | |
| 251 bytes (2008 bits) | 60.68 | 0.0027 | 0.05 | 0 | 0.0018 | |
| 251 bytes (2008 bits) | 73.75 | 0.00023 | 0.002 | 0.04 | 0.04 | |
|
| 67 × 67 (4489 bits) | 78.0702 | 0.0000455 | 3.38 × 10−4 | 0 | 0.105 |