| Literature DB >> 35464186 |
Garima Sharma1, Karthikeyan Umapathy1, Sri Krishnan1.
Abstract
The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) first appeared at the end of December 2019 and is still spreading in most countries. To diagnose COVID-19 using reverse transcription - Polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), one has to go to a dedicated center, which requires significant cost and human resources. Hence, there is a requirement for a remote monitoring tool that can perform the preliminary screening of COVID-19. In this paper, we propose that a detailed audio texture analysis of COVID-19 sounds may help in performing the initial screening of COVID-19. The texture analysis is done on three different signal modalities of COVID-19, i.e. cough, breath, and speech signals. In this work, we have used 1141 samples of cough signals, 392 samples of breath signals, and 893 samples of speech signals. To analyze the audio textural behavior of COVID-19 sounds, the local binary patterns LBP) and Haralick's features were extracted from the spectrogram of the signals. The textural analysis on cough and breath sounds was done on the following 5 classes for the first time: COVID-19 positive with cough, COVID-19 positive without cough, healthy person with cough, healthy person without cough, and an asthmatic cough. For speech sounds there were only two classes: COVID-19 positive, and COVID-19 negative. During experiments, 71.7% of the cough samples and 72.2% of breath samples were classified into 5 classes. Also, 79.7% of speech samples are classified into 2 classes. The highest accuracy rate of 98.9% was obtained when binary classification between COVID-19 cough and non-COVID-19 cough was done.Entities:
Keywords: Audio texture; Breath; COVID-19; Cough; Haralick features; Local binary pattern; Spectrogram; Speech
Year: 2022 PMID: 35464186 PMCID: PMC9013601 DOI: 10.1016/j.bspc.2022.103703
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Signal Process Control ISSN: 1746-8094 Impact factor: 3.880
Distribution of samples for cough, breath, and speech modality.
| Cough | COVID-19 + ve with cough | 204 |
| COVID-19 + ve without cough | 64 | |
| COVID-19 -ve with cough | 631 | |
| COVID-19 -ve no symptom | 138 | |
| Asthma user with cough | 104 | |
| Breath | COVID-19 + ve with cough | 46 |
| COVID-19 + ve without cough | 51 | |
| COVID-19 -ve with cough | 64 | |
| COVID-19 -ve no symptom | 127 | |
| Asthma user with cough | 104 | |
| Speech | COVID-19 + ve | 308 |
| COVID-19 -ve | 585 |
Fig. 1Proposed system architecture and flow diagram for texture analysis and classification of COVID-19 sounds.
Fig. 2Spectrograms for COVID-19, non-COVID-19, and asthma cough sound.
Fig. 3Spectrograms for COVID-19, non-COVID-19, and asthma breath sound.
Haralick’s features description [35].
| Angular second moment | measures homogeneity of local gray scale distribution | |
| Contrast | ||
| Correlation | ||
| Variance | ||
| Inverse difference moment | measures local homogeneity | |
| Sum average | measures mean of the gray level sum distribution | |
| Sum variance | calculates dispersion of the gray level sum distribution | |
| Sum entropy | measures disorder related to the gray level sum distribution | |
| Entropy | measure randomness | |
| Difference variance | describes heterogeneity | |
| Difference entropy | measures disorder related to the distribution of gray scale difference | |
| Information measure correlation 1 | ||
| Information measure of correlation 2 | ||
| Maximum correlation coefficient |
Fig. 4(a), (b): Visualization of LBP features from cough and breath modality for all 5 classes, 0: COVID-19 + ve with cough, 1: COVID-19 + ve without cough as a symptom, 2: COVID-19 -ve with cough, 3: COVID-19 -ve with no symptoms, 4: Asthma users with cough, (c): Visualization of LBP features from speech modality for 2 classes: COVID-19 + ve speech and COVID-19 -ve speech.
Classification results for all experiments.
| Experiment 1 | cough | LBP only | 0.77 | 78.1 % |
| Haralick only | 0.69 | 72.9% | ||
| LBP + Haralick | ||||
| Experiment 2 | cough | LBP only | 0.77 | 69.9% |
| Haralick only | 0.67 | 62.3% | ||
| LBP + Haralick | ||||
| Experiment 3 | breath | LBP only | 0.92 | 82.7% |
| Haralick only | 0.90 | 80.8% | ||
| LBP + Haralick | ||||
| Experiment 4 | breath | LBP only | 0.85 | 70.9% |
| Haralick only | 0.76 | 63.5% | ||
| LBP + Haralick | ||||
| Experiment 5 | cough + breath | LBP only | 0.78 | 66.8 % |
| Haralick only | 0.69 | 60.5% | ||
| LBP + Haralick | ||||
| Experiment 6 | Speech | LBP only | 0.83 | 79.5% |
| Haralick only | 0.73 | 73.1% | ||
| LBP + Haralick | ||||
| Experiment 7 | cough | LBP only | 0.97 | 98.7 % |
| Haralick only | 0.90 | 92% | ||
| LBP + Haralick |
Fig. 5Confusion matrix for breath modality for all 5 classes using LBP + Haralick (Experiment 4).
Comparison with the state-of-the-art works.
| Brown et al. | cough, breath | 2 | 82% | Acoustic |
| Orlandic et al. | cough | 2 | 82% | Acoustic |
| Bagad et al. | cough | 2 | 72% | Acoustic |
| Pahar et al. | cough | 2 | 95% | Acoustic |
| Pahar et al. | cough, breath, and speech | 2 | 98% | Deep networks |
| Hassan et al. | cough, breath, and speech | 2 | 98.2% | Acoustic |