Why the study?
Non-contact extraction of physiological indicators via RGB camera requires effective processing methods to filter disturbances, decompose photoplethysmographic signals, and reduce computational complexity.
Does the MAF-SVMD algorithm improve the accuracy of non-contact heart rate and respiration rate monitoring compared to EMD and VMD methods?
Does the MAF-SVMD algorithm improve the accuracy of non-contact heart rate and respiration rate monitoring compared to EMD and VMD methods?
The proposed MAF-SVMD algorithm provides highly accurate non-contact respiratory rate monitoring comparable to VMD but with lower computational complexity, while heart rate extraction remains consistent across methods.
MAF-SVMD offers a low-complexity option for non-contact respiratory monitoring; leaves open prospective clinical validation before adoption.
Nowadays, a variety of studies have shown that a person’s physiological indicators can be reliably extracted from a distance through an RGB camera. For this purpose, our work suggests an effective hybrid approach based on photoplethysmographic signal (PPG) analysis for the continuous monitoring of physiological signs, including heart rate and respiration rate. Our approach presents dependable methods for image and signal processing that combine moving average filtering and successive variable mode decomposition methods (w.r.t. MAF-SVMD). These two latter approaches will be applied to the PPG signal in order to overcome drawbacks, filter the disturbances in the signal, and decompose the PPG signal. Additionally, the suggested method, MAF-SVMD, has much lower computational complexity and is more robust to the initial values. Our findings were contrasted with those of traditional techniques, including EMD and VMD methods. Between the proposed approach and the VMD algorithm, the derived respiratory rates show an average delta error of 0 and a coefficient correlation of 0.99; however, between the suggested technique and the EMD method, the relative delta value is equal to 7.71 and a coefficient correlation of 0.69. While the retrieved heart rate from each of the three methods shown is generally convergent to the same value.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Khadiri et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: