| Literature DB >> 35677178 |
Abstract
Athletes usually arrange their training plans and determine their training intensity according to the coach's experience and simple physical indicators such as heart rate during exercise. However, the accuracy of this method is poor, and the training plan and exercise intensity arranged according to this method can easily cause physical damage, or the training cannot meet the actual needs. Therefore, in order to realize the reasonable arrangement and monitoring of athletes' training, a method of human exercise intensity recognition based on ECG (electrocardiogram) and PCG (Phonocardiogram) is proposed. First, the ECG and PCG signals are fused into a two-dimensional image, and the dataset is marked and divided according to the different motion intensities. Then, the training set is trained with a CNN (convolutional neural network) to obtain the prediction model of the neural network. Finally, the neural network model is used to identify the ECG and PCG signals to judge the exercise intensity of the athlete, so as to adjust the training plan according to the exercise intensity. The recognition accuracy of the model on the dataset can reach 95.68%. Compared with the use of heart rate to detect the physical state during exercise, ECG records the total potential changes in the process of depolarization and repolarization of the heart, and PCG records the waveform of the beating sound of the heart, which contains richer feature information. Combined with the CNN method, the athlete's exercise intensity prediction model constructed by extracting the features of the athlete's ECG and PCG signals realizes the real-time monitoring of the athlete's exercise intensity and has high accuracy and generalization ability.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35677178 PMCID: PMC9170402 DOI: 10.1155/2022/5741787
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Math Methods Med ISSN: 1748-670X Impact factor: 2.809
Figure 1AlexNet network.
Figure 2Confusion matrix.
Figure 3Method flow chart.
Figure 4ECG lead configuration and PCG stethoscope position for dataset.
Figure 5Six different ECG and PCG fusion signals.
Dataset 1.
| Classes | Train set samples | Validation set samples |
|---|---|---|
| Bicycle | 3877 | 430 |
| Treadmill | 2588 | 287 |
| Stationary bicycle | 3879 | 431 |
| Walking at constant speed | 3878 | 430 |
| Laying on bed | 3879 | 430 |
| Sitting on armchair | 2587 | 287 |
Dataset 2.
| Classes | Train set samples | Validation set samples |
|---|---|---|
| Exercise intensity 1 | 3879 | 430 |
| Exercise intensity 2 | 3689 | 409 |
| Exercise intensity 3 | 3878 | 430 |
| Exercise intensity 4 | 3879 | 431 |
| Exercise intensity 5 | 3877 | 430 |
| Exercise intensity 6 | 3693 | 410 |
Figure 6Loss and accuracy.
Figure 7Data 1 confusion matrix.
Figure 8Data 1 clustering analysis.
Figure 9Data 2 loss and accuracy.
Figure 10Data 2 confusion matrix.
Figure 11Data 2 clustering analysis.
Comparison of accuracy of exercise intensity classification.
| Methods | Accuracy |
|---|---|
| Fernando et al. | 84.65 |
| Jian et al. | 93.5% |
| Vahid et al. | 90.7% |
| Igor et al. | 85 |
| Afzaal et al. | 89 |
| Proposed | 95.7 |
Figure 12Comparison of accuracy of exercise intensity classification.