| Literature DB >> 35884267 |
Seungjae Lee1, Ho Bin Hwang1, Seongryul Park1, Sanghag Kim2, Jung Hee Ha3, Yoojin Jang3, Sejin Hwang4, Hoon-Ki Park5, Jongshill Lee1, In Young Kim1.
Abstract
Mental stress is on the rise as one of the major health problems in modern society. It is important to detect and manage mental stress to prevent various diseases caused by stress and to maintain a healthy life. The purpose of this paper is to present new heart rate variability (HRV) features based on empirical mode decomposition and to detect acute mental stress through short-term HRV (5 min) and ultra-short-term HRV (under 5 min) analysis. HRV signals were acquired from 74 young police officers using acute stressors, including the Trier Social Stress Test and horror movie viewing, and a total of 26 features, including the proposed IMF energy features and general HRV features, were extracted. A support vector machine (SVM) classification model is used to classify the stress and non-stress states through leave-one-subject-out cross-validation. The classification accuracies of short-term HRV and ultra-short-term HRV analysis are 86.5% and 90.5%, respectively. In the results of ultra-short-term HRV analysis using various time lengths, we suggest the optimal duration to detect mental stress, which can be applied to wearable devices or healthcare systems.Entities:
Keywords: empirical mode decomposition (EMD); heart rate variability (HRV); non-linear features; stress assessment; ultra-short-term HRV analysis
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35884267 PMCID: PMC9313333 DOI: 10.3390/bios12070465
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biosensors (Basel) ISSN: 2079-6374
Figure 1Flowchart for the proposed stress classification method.
Figure 2Experimental protocol for inducing stress.
Figure 3Ultra-short-term HRV explanation for each time segment during the experimental protocol.
Figure 4FFT spectra of resampled HRV and IMF components: resting state (left), stress state (right).
Figure 5Mean frequency range of each IMF components in short-term HRV.
Correlation coefficients between frequency domain features.
| HF | LF | LF/HF Ratio | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 0.93 | 0.79 | −0.29 |
|
| 0.77 | 0.92 | −0.03 |
|
| −0.43 | −0.09 | 0.86 |
HRV features in descending order of significance according to the Relief-F algorithm.
| Rank | Feature Name | Rank | Feature Name |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Energy | 14 | SpEn |
| 2 | SDNN | 15 | G-pNNx |
| 3 | Energy_(IMF2+IMF3) | 16 | PmEn_IMF3 |
| 4 | SpEn_IMF3 | 17 | pNN50 |
| 5 | RMSSD_IMF3 | 18 | pNN30 |
| 6 | Energy_IMF1 | 19 | SpEn_IMF2 |
| 7 | SDNN_IMF3 | 20 | Energy_IMF23/IMF1 |
| 8 | HR | 21 | Energy_IMF1/IMF123 |
| 9 | SDNN_IMF2 | 22 | Energy_IMF23/IMF123 |
| 10 | RMSSD_IMF2 | 23 | PmEn |
| 11 | RMSSD | 24 | PmEn_IMF1 |
| 12 | RMSSD_IMF1 | 25 | PmEn_IMF2 |
| 13 | SDNN_IMF1 | 26 | SpEn_IMF1 |
Figure 6Classification performance using short-term HRV data.
Classification performance using ultra-short-term HRV data according to time segments and time lengths.
| Classification Performance (%) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Front | Middle | Last | ||
| 3-min | Accuracy | 90.5 | 84.5 | 84.5 |
| F1 Score | 90.3 | 83.7 | 84.6 | |
| 2-min | Accuracy | 87.2 | 81.8 | 82.4 |
| F1 Score | 86.7 | 82.1 | 81.9 | |
| 1-min | Accuracy | 82.4 | 85.1 | 79.7 |
| F1 Score | 82.4 | 84.5 | 79.2 | |
Figure 7Comparison of classification accuracy using ultra-short-term HRV data.
Correlation analysis of ultra-short-term vs. short-term HRV features.
| Rest State | Stress State | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HRV Features | 3 vs. 5 min | 2 vs. 5 min | 1 vs. 5 min | 3 vs. 5 min | 2 vs. 5 min | 1 vs. 5 min |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 0.674 |
Performance comparison of the proposed method with the state-of-the-art methods for short-term HRV analysis.
| Paper | Number of Subjects | Physiological Signals | Classifier | Validation | Accuracy (Classes) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [ | 18 | ECG (HRV), PPG, GSR | AdaBoost | 4-fold | 79.0% (2) |
| [ | 40 | PPG | SVM-RBF | LOSOCV | 80.0% (2) |
| [ | 12 | ECG (HRV) | Random Forest | 3-fold | Non-overlapping: 85.9% (2) |
| [ | 57 | ECG (HRV) | ANN | 5-fold | 91.0% (2) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|