Key result
Expressing Higuchi Fractal Dimension via time intervals aligns estimates across sampling frequencies with ~1.0 correlation.
Why the study?
Higuchi Fractal Dimension estimates in non-ideally fractal EEG signals are sensitive to parameter kmax and sampling frequency, making results difficult to compare across studies.
Observational (n=30)
No
Using a time-scale representation for Higuchi Fractal Dimension improves the comparability and interpretation of EEG signal analysis across different studies.
Higuchi Fractal Dimension (HFD) is a widely used nonlinear metric with extensive application in biological signal analysis, including electroencephalography (EEG) signal processing. HFD relies on a single free parameter, k max , which is the maximum scale in samples, used to assess the signal’s self-similarity. While fractal dimension estimation is independent of sampling frequency ( Fs ) in ideally fractal signals, EEG signals do not exhibit ideal fractality, also making the HFD estimates sensitive to both parameter k max and sampling frequency. As a result, HFD results reported across studies are difficult to compare with different parameter settings. In this work, we emphasize the need to account for the sampling frequency and present the HFD results in terms of the maximum time interval, t max = k max /Fs , rather than k max , thereby facilitating comparisons across studies. Additionally, we demonstrate that the choice of maximum time interval ( t max ) determines the frequency range that HFD focuses on, improving the interpretation of the results and enabling a more informed parameter selection.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Masoumirad et al. (2026) conducted an observational in Healthy (n=30). Time-scale representation (tmax) vs. Sample-scale representation (kmax) was evaluated on Spearman's rank correlation coefficient between HFD estimates at 250 Hz and 500 Hz. Expressing Higuchi Fractal Dimension using maximum time interval (tmax) rather than samples (kmax) aligns estimates across sampling frequencies, yielding a mean Spearman correlation of 0.999.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: