| Literature DB >> 35890928 |
Muhammad Husaini1,2, Latifah Munirah Kamarudin1,2, Ammar Zakaria1,3, Intan Kartika Kamarudin4, Muhammad Amin Ibrahim5, Hiromitsu Nishizaki6, Masahiro Toyoura7, Xiaoyang Mao7.
Abstract
Ultra-wideband radar application for sleep breathing monitoring is hampered by the difficulty of obtaining breathing signals for non-stationary subjects. This occurs due to imprecise signal clutter removal and poor body movement removal algorithms for extracting accurate breathing signals. Therefore, this paper proposed a Sleep Breathing Detection Algorithm (SBDA) to address this challenge. First, SBDA introduces the combination of variance feature with Discrete Wavelet Transform (DWT) to tackle the issue of clutter signals. This method used Daubechies wavelets with five levels of decomposition to satisfy the signal-to-noise ratio in the signal. Second, SBDA implements a curve fit based sinusoidal pattern algorithm for detecting periodic motion. The measurement was taken by comparing the R-square value to differentiate between chest and body movements. Last but not least, SBDA applied the Ensemble Empirical Mode Decomposition (EEMD) method for extracting breathing signals before transforming the signal to the frequency domain using Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) to obtain breathing rate. The analysis was conducted on 15 subjects with normal and abnormal ratings for sleep monitoring. All results were compared with two existing methods obtained from previous literature with Polysomnography (PSG) devices. The result found that SBDA effectively monitors breathing using IR-UWB as it has the lowest average percentage error with only 6.12% compared to the other two existing methods from past research implemented in this dataset.Entities:
Keywords: breathing rate (BR); contactless sensing; polysomnography (PSG); sleeping monitoring; ultra-wideband (UWB) radar
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35890928 PMCID: PMC9321517 DOI: 10.3390/s22145249
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.847
Figure 1Experimental design for data collection.
Subjects detail.
| Subjects | Age | Weight (kg) | Height (cm) | Neck | Gender | Epworth Score | STOPBANG Score | AHI | Rating |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 27 | 65 | 163 | 12.5 | Female | 9 | 1 | 4 | Normal |
| 2 | 26 | 57 | 163 | 12.0 | Female | 7 | 1 | 3.7 | Normal |
| 3 | 28 | 53 | 151 | 13.5 | Female | 6 | 0 | 2.8 | Normal |
| 4 | 28 | 40 | 158 | 12.5 | Female | 9 | 1 | 0.8 | Normal |
| 5 | 23 | 50 | 170 | 12.0 | Female | 8 | 1 | 0.4 | Normal |
| 6 | 42 | 100 | 162 | 16.5 | Female | 5 | 2 | 12 | Abnormal |
| 7 | 36 | 54 | 159 | 14.5 | Female | 6 | 0 | 1.3 | Normal |
| 8 | 24 | 76 | 150 | 15.0 | Female | 6 | 1 | 2.6 | Normal |
| 9 | 41 | 68 | 163 | 13.0 | Female | 13 | 1 | 5.4 | Abnormal |
| 10 | 42 | 101 | 169 | 17.0 | Male | 3 | 6 | 23.2 | Abnormal |
| 11 | 21 | 75 | 175 | 15.3 | Male | 8 | 2 | 0.8 | Normal |
| 12 | 42 | 108 | 168 | 15.0 | Male | 19 | 4 | 24.5 | Abnormal |
| 13 | 27 | 48 | 167 | 13.0 | Male | 9 | 2 | 5.5 | Abnormal |
| 14 | 38 | 81 | 178 | 15.2 | Male | 4 | 3 | 18.1 | Abnormal |
| 15 | 25 | 67 | 165 | 14.0 | Male | 8 | 3 | 2.7 | Normal |
Figure 2XeThru X4M200 UWB RADAR sensor.
Figure 3Block diagram of UWB X4M200 RADAR sensor. Retrieved 30 June 2022, from: https://novelda.com.
Figure 4Sample of signal with sine curve fit above threshold value.
Figure 5Sample of signal with sine curve fit below threshold value.
Figure 6Clutter removal signal.
Figure 7Fast time signal before clutter removal.
Figure 8Fast time signal after clutter removal.
Calculated energy ratio for 15 subjects.
| Subject |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | - | 0.0241 | 0.6642 | 0.5175 | 0.4550 | - |
| 2 | - | 0.1725 | 0.7565 | 0.6546 | 0.4040 | - |
| 3 | - | 0.0495 | 0.6554 | 0.5013 | 0.6563 | - |
| 4 | - | 0.2752 | 0.6701 | 0.5753 | 0.0051 | - |
| 5 | - | 0.1694 | 0.7490 | 0.5828 | 0.2768 | - |
| 6 | - | 0.3934 | 0.8145 | 0.6163 | 0.6916 | - |
| 7 | - | 0.5834 | 0.6768 | 0.5548 | 0.2016 | - |
| 8 | - | 0.0545 | 0.7918 | 0.5246 | 0.3457 | - |
| 9 | - | 0.2868 | 0.6443 | 0.6721 | 0.1725 | - |
| 10 | - | 0.5909 | 0.7223 | 0.5038 | 0.0341 | - |
| 11 | - | 0.0836 | 0.7718 | 0.6402 | 0.0020 | - |
| 12 | - | 0.0728 | 0.6104 | 0.5225 | 0.1039 | - |
| 13 | - | 0.2947 | 0.6174 | 0.6390 | 0.2253 | - |
| 14 | - | 0.1167 | 0.6145 | 0.5879 | 0.1146 | - |
| 15 | - | 0.2936 | 0.6250 | 0.5956 | 0.4659 | - |
Figure 9Bland Altman Plot for SBDA with PSG data for all 15 subjects.
Summary of percentage error.
| Percentage Error | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject | Autocorrelation + FFT (%) [ | Mean Subtraction + FFT (%) [ | SBDA (%) |
| 1 | 14.20 | 20.38 | 8.02 |
| 2 | 11.22 | 15.75 | 6.69 |
| 3 | 9.53 | 11.50 | 7.56 |
| 4 | 8.02 | 8.39 | 7.66 |
| 5 | 12.57 | 16.65 | 8.49 |
| 6 | 10.65 | 14.04 | 7.25 |
| 7 | 11.73 | 18.65 | 4.81 |
| 8 | 16.77 | 26.47 | 7.08 |
| 9 | 7.11 | 8.20 | 6.02 |
| 10 | 9.91 | 15.77 | 4.05 |
| 11 | 9.56 | 13.24 | 5.88 |
| 12 | 9.98 | 14.96 | 5.01 |
| 13 | 9.81 | 14.89 | 4.73 |
| 14 | 9.64 | 14.83 | 4.45 |
| 15 | 9.46 | 14.76 | 4.17 |