| Literature DB >> 35154587 |
Chamandeep Kaur1, Preeti Singh1, Sukhtej Sahni2.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Several computer-aided diagnosis systems for depression are suggested for use by clinicians to authorize the diagnosis. EEG may be used as an objective analysis tool for identifying depression in the initial stage to avoid it from reaching a severe and permanent state. However, artifact contamination reduces the accuracy in EEG signal processing systems.Entities:
Keywords: Artifacts; Depression; EEG; Empirical Mode Decomposition (EMD); Wavelets
Year: 2021 PMID: 35154587 PMCID: PMC8817173 DOI: 10.32598/bcn.2021.1388.2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Basic Clin Neurosci ISSN: 2008-126X
Figure 1.Existing denoising algorithms
A comparative analysis of existing EEG denoising methods
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| B- splines before applying regression and subspace projection | fMRI Image | Provides better results | |
| Regression-based and PCA, ICA component-based methods | EEG | Using the adaptive filter, the performance of regression-based artifact correction improves. | |
| BSS- SVM | EEG | Efficient Denoising | |
| BSS algorithms | EEG | SOBI effective than other BSS algorithms | |
| wICA | EEG | Conserves both spectral as well as coherence characteristics unlike ICA leading to overestimation of power spectrum and underestimation of coherence property | |
| JSSE | EEG | Reducing the distortion and interference of the artifacts than FastICA, SOBI, and JADE algorithms | |
| DWT | ECG | Better SNR and MSE | |
| Robust minimum variance beamformer (RMVB) | EEG | Low cost and more effective | |
| EEMD | Noise assisted Data | More accurate | |
|
| Mutual information with ICA and wavelet denoising | EEG | No need to define the threshold values or offline training |
| EMD | ECG | Beter than adaptive filtering Mode- mixing problem | |
| WPT- ICA & WPT- EMD | EEG | Suitable for artifact removal without any proper information about the artifacts | |
| EMD- DFA | - | Efficient at low SNR values | |
| VMD | Power quality signal | Efficient denoising More accurate | |
| EEMD-BLMS and DWT-NN | ECG | Efficient denoising | |
| VMD | Seismic Data | More robust and well- defined time- domain analysis |
Figure 2.The flowchart of the proposed methodology
Comparing the proposed denoising techniques with the conventional respecting SNR and MAE corresponding to different levels of white Gaussian noise
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SNR | DWT | 4.20 | 5.1492 | 10.18 | 15.82 | 20.12 |
| EMD only | 4.21 | 5.03 | 12.32 | 15.34 | 21.29 | |
| EMD- DWT | 1.23 | 5.944 | 12.04 | 16.582 | 22.583 | |
| EMD-DFA- WPD | 20.24 | 18.54 | 18.04 | 16.29 | 17.06 | |
| MAE | DWT | 13.7209 | 45.492 | 101.18 | 115.82 | 202.12 |
| EMD only | 13.6731 | 45.03 | 101.32 | 115.34 | 202.29 | |
| EMD- DWT | 13.23 | 44.944 | 101.04 | 116.582 | 202.583 | |
| EMD-DFA- WPD | 12.24 | 44.04 | 100.04 | 115.89 | 203.06 |
Figure 3.The variation of SNR at the output corresponding to different levels of white Gaussian noise
Figure 4.The variation of MAE at the output corresponding to different levels of white Gaussian noise
Figure 5.The variation of SNR at different values of H
The statistical analysis of SNR, MAE between the reconstructed and original signal between different approaches
|
|
|
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
|
|
|
|
| |
| SNR | 0.03 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
| MAE | 0.01 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
Accuracy evaluation of different denoising techniques using random forest and SVM based classification
|
|
|
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
|
|
|
|
| |
| DWT | 94.29 | 97.8 | 93.9 | 94.09 |
| WPT | 92.7 | 96.7 | 90.1 | 94.7 |
| EMD- DFA | 91.07 | 98.0 | 90.83 | 97.21 |
| EMD-DWT | 96.83 | 98.01 | 93.89 | 95.81 |
| EMD-DFA-WPD | 97.81 | 98.51 | 94.37 | 98.07 |
Classification performance, compared with and without Denoising using Random Forest and SVM-based classification
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|
| RF | 96.98 | 98.51 |
| SVM | 94.83 | 98.07 |