2015
DOI: 10.1007/s11517-015-1394-4
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Cumulant-based trapezoidal basis selection for heart sound classification

Abstract: Past decades witnessed the expansion of linear signal processing methods in numerous biomedical applications. However, the nonlinear behavior of biomedical signals revived the interest in nonlinear signal processing methods such as higher-order statistics, in particular higher-order cumulants (HOC). In this paper, HOC are utilized toward heart sound classification. Heart sounds are presented by wavelet packet decomposition trees. Information measures are then defined based on HOC of wavelet packet coefficients… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 28 publications
(51 reference statements)
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Similarly, identification of S 2 (SHSD) at the event level, was reported in [25], [29], [45], [47], [52], [57], [64], [87]- [89], [92], [94], [96], [100], and [104], achieving a mean accuracy of 93.96 ± 5.01%; while the mean classification accuracy reported in [90], [106], and [111] was 90.82 ± 6.58%. Pathological heart sounds detection (PHSD) at the event level reported in [29], [64], [65], [67], and [112], achieved mean accuracy of 88.50 ± 5.93%, while pathological heart sounds classification (PHSC) reported in [64], [69], [75], [78], [95], [105], [110], [140], [142], [145], [146], [155], [157], [158], [162]- [164], [167], [170], [183], [185], and [191], achieved mean classification accuracy of 90.28 ± 7.82%. The mean accuracy in the identification of S 1 at the event level was found to be the highest.…”
Section: Synthesis Of Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Similarly, identification of S 2 (SHSD) at the event level, was reported in [25], [29], [45], [47], [52], [57], [64], [87]- [89], [92], [94], [96], [100], and [104], achieving a mean accuracy of 93.96 ± 5.01%; while the mean classification accuracy reported in [90], [106], and [111] was 90.82 ± 6.58%. Pathological heart sounds detection (PHSD) at the event level reported in [29], [64], [65], [67], and [112], achieved mean accuracy of 88.50 ± 5.93%, while pathological heart sounds classification (PHSC) reported in [64], [69], [75], [78], [95], [105], [110], [140], [142], [145], [146], [155], [157], [158], [162]- [164], [167], [170], [183], [185], and [191], achieved mean classification accuracy of 90.28 ± 7.82%. The mean accuracy in the identification of S 1 at the event level was found to be the highest.…”
Section: Synthesis Of Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Experimental data included the different categories: normal heart sounds, aortic stenosis, mitral regurgitation, and aortic regurgitation. The results were promising to achieve indicate the capabilities of HOC of wavelet packet coefficients [9]. In 2016, Deng Shiwen proposed a novel heart sound classification method based on the autocorrelation feature and diffusion map.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 94%
“…The difficulty of that approach is to adjust a few thresholds for reconstruction of the cardiac sound signal [14]. Moreover, other study used external reference such as Electrocardiogram (ECG) signal for detection of S1 and S2 in PCG signal [15].…”
Section: Figure 1 a General Block Diagram Of Automated Cardiac Soundmentioning
confidence: 99%