| Literature DB >> 36105634 |
Mohammed J Abdulaal1,2, Ibrahim M Mehedi1,2, Abdulah Jeza Aljohani1,2, Ahmad H Milyani1, Mohamed Mahmoud3, Manish Kumar Sahu4, Abdullah M Abusorrah1, Rahtul Jannat Meem5.
Abstract
The capacity to carry out one's regular tasks is affected to varying degrees by hearing difficulties. Poorer understanding, slower learning, and an overall reduction in efficiency in academic endeavours are just a few of the negative impacts of hearing impairments on children's performance, which may range from mild to severe. A significant factor in determining whether or not there will be a decrease in performance is the kind and source of impairment. Research has shown that the Artificial Neural Network technique is capable of modelling both linear and nonlinear solution surfaces in a trustworthy way, as demonstrated in previous studies. To improve the precision with which hearing impairment challenges are diagnosed, a neural network backpropagation approach has been developed with the purpose of fine-tuning the diagnostic process. In particular, it highlights the vital role performed by medical informatics in supporting doctors in the identification of diseases as well as the formulation of suitable choices via the use of data management and knowledge discovery. As part of the intelligent control method, it is proposed in this research to construct a Histogram Equalization (HE)-based Adaptive Center-Weighted Median (ACWM) filter, which is then used to segment/detect the OM in tympanic membrane images using different segmentation methods in order to minimise noise and improve the image quality. A tympanic membrane dataset, which is freely accessible, was used in all experiments.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36105634 PMCID: PMC9467762 DOI: 10.1155/2022/9653513
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Intell Neurosci
Figure 1System architecture.
Figure 2Methodology of the HE/ACWM filter.
Figure 3DWT processing structure.
Figure 4Sample TM dataset.
PSNR-based comparison of the HE/ACWM method with other methods for denoising the input image for different density ranges.
| S. no. | Weighted median filter | Adaptive median filter | HE/ACWM | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| IM1 | 30% | 21.04 | 21.28 | 22.32 |
| 40% | 16.52 | 20.18 | 20.99 | |
| 50% | 20.78 | 21.07 | 21.52 | |
|
| ||||
| IM2 | 30% | 21.57 | 24.71 | 25.72 |
| 40% | 23.26 | 24.48 | 25.13 | |
| 50% | 22.11 | 22.97 | 23.09 | |
|
| ||||
| IM3 | 30% | 22.52 | 24.11 | 26.76 |
| 40% | 24.96 | 25.65 | 26.23 | |
| 50% | 22.54 | 23.33 | 25.66 | |
|
| ||||
| IM4 | 30% | 21.56 | 22.54 | 23.56 |
| 40% | 25.45 | 26.78 | 27.45 | |
| 50% | 22.18 | 22.95 | 24.87 | |
|
| ||||
| IM5 | 30% | 25.00 | 26.46 | 27.89 |
| 40% | 23.69 | 27.69 | 28.61 | |
| 50% | 28.25 | 29.13 | 30.05 | |
RI comparison for different segmentation algorithms.
| S. no. | ACM | GC | DWT |
|---|---|---|---|
| IM1 | 0.6329 | 0.6568 | 0.7325 |
| IM2 | 0.8245 | 0.8611 | 0.9364 |
| IM3 | 0.4732 | 0.4034 | 0.5736 |
| IM4 | 0.7276 | 0.7918 | 0.8271 |
| IM5 | 0.9055 | 0.9110 | 0.9664 |
| IM6 | 0.7767 | 0.8764 | 0.9835 |
| IM7 | 0.1354 | 0.1241 | 0.2608 |
| IM8 | 0.2113 | 0.2374 | 0.3877 |
| IM9 | 0.7554 | 0.7063 | 0.8654 |
| IM10 | 0.3198 | 0.4975 | 0.5069 |
Figure 5(a) Original image, (b) ACM, (c) GC, and (d) DWT.
Figure 6Comparative analysis of the RI value for the segmentation algorithms.
GCE Comparison for different segmentation algorithms.
| S. no. | ACM | GC | DWT |
|---|---|---|---|
| IM1 | 0.8469 | 0.6229 | 0.4334 |
| IM2 | 0.5092 | 0.5188 | 0.3914 |
| IM3 | 0.0695 | 0.1165 | 0.0422 |
| IM4 | 0.7343 | 0.6311 | 0.4885 |
| IM5 | 0.8094 | 0.8422 | 0.6655 |
| IM6 | 0.7412 | 0.5467 | 0.3432 |
| IM7 | 0.3885 | 0.2851 | 0.1094 |
| IM8 | 0.3151 | 0.5041 | 0.4091 |
| IM9 | 0.1039 | 0.3109 | 0.2009 |
| IM10 | 0.4021 | 0.2054 | 0.1343 |
Figure 7Comparative analysis of the GCE value for the segmentation algorithms.
Comparison of different segmentation algorithms.
| S. no. | ACM | GC | DWT |
|---|---|---|---|
| IM1 | 6.2974 | 6.2844 | 3.4155 |
| IM2 | 7.8847 | 6.3413 | 3.7859 |
| IM3 | 6.8745 | 6.4657 | 3.9834 |
| IM4 | 7.8934 | 6.5387 | 3.1283 |
| IM5 | 6.7562 | 6.4391 | 3.6481 |
| IM6 | 6.7197 | 6.1073 | 3.8264 |
| IM7 | 6.9863 | 6.0918 | 3.5032 |
| IM8 | 7.8756 | 6.7462 | 3.7834 |
| IM9 | 6.8291 | 6.2472 | 3.7345 |
| IM10 | 7.7606 | 6.9102 | 3.9365 |
Figure 8Comparative analysis of the VI value for the segmentation algorithms.