Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
De-noise the signal with the Butterworth from other radio transmitters. According to [27] the
filter using Daubechies wavelets. higher the SIR the minimal the interference and the
Convert the de-noised signal back to time SIR must reach a minimum threshold for the signals
domain to be detected. Suksompong [28] explained that SIR
should be greater than a specified threshold for
b) Performance Analysis Method: proper signal operation. In the 1G AMPS system,
To check the performance of the filter designed for voice calls, the threshold for acceptable
various analysis were carried out which includes the voice quality is SIR equal to 18dB, for the 2G digital
calculation of Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR), Mean AMPS system (D-AMPS or IS-54/136), a threshold
Square Error (MSE) and Signal to Interference Ratio of 14 dB is deemed suitable, and for the GSM system,
(SIR). a range of 7–12 dB, depending on the study done, is
Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR): The signal to noise suggested as the appropriate threshold, While, the
ratio (SNR) compares the level of desired signal to probability of error in a digital system depends on the
the level of background noise. Sources of noise can choice of this threshold as well. Wireless devices
include microwave ovens, cordless phone, Bluetooth works reliably with SIR value of 0dBm or less [29].
devices, wireless video cameras, wireless game The SIR value was calculated using the following
controller, fluorescent lights, and more [25]. The equation:
noise does not include co-channel interference from
other radio transmitters. According to [25], a ratio of
10-15dB is the accepted minimum to establish an
unreliable connection, 16-24dB is usually considered (6)
poor; 25-40dB is good and a ratio of 41dB or higher
is considered excellent. The SNR value can be was where,
calculated using the following equations: = Amplitude of input (Noisy signal)
= Amplitude of noise removed through
filtering.
(3)
IV. RESULTS
Or,
A. ECG De-Noising Simulation Results
The simulation results for the ECG de-
noising of different signals (104, 108, 109, 113, 117,
(4) 119, 209, 222, 230 and 232) have been carried out
using Butterworth filter. The process uses equations 1
where, and 2 to carry out the simulation and the results are
S = RMS power of ECG signal obtained in both time and frequency domain
N = RMS power of the de-noised ECG signal representation. However, since the researcher cannot
present all the simulated results, for the purpose of
Mean Square Error (MSE): The mean square presentation, the results of two signals (108, 109) de-
error (MSE) measures the average of the squares of noised were randomly selected and presented both in
the errors, that is, the average square difference their time and frequency domains as shown in
between the estimated value and the actual value. It Figures (3, 4, 5 and 6).
measures how close fitted line is to data point and
provides us with confidence that our assumptions
about trends in the data are correct. The smaller the
MSE value the better the fit, as smaller values imply
smaller magnitudes of error [26]. The MSE value was
calculated using the following equation:
where,
= Noisy signal
= De-noised signal
N = Number of samples
For signal 108, Fig. 3a shows the noisy signal 108 5b is a representation of de-noised signal 108 using
represented in its time domain, while Fig. 3b is a the Butterworth filter in its time domain. Comparing
representation of de-noised signal 108 using the Figs. 5a and 5b we observe that the de-noised signal
Butterworth filter in its time domain. Comparing Figs. in Fig. 5b is sharper and clearer and again did not
3a and 3b we see that the de-noised signal in Fig. 3b maintain the original shape.
is sharper and clearer but its original shape is not
preserved.
Fig. 4b: De-noised signal in frequency domain (signal 108) Fig. 6a is the noisy signal 109 represented in its
frequency domain, while Fig. 6b is the de-noised
Fig. 4a is the noisy signal 108 represented in its signal 109 using the Butterworth filter represented in
frequency domain, while Fig. 4b is a representation its frequency domain. Again comparing Figs. 6a and
of de-noised signal 108 using the Butterworth filter in 6b we observe that the de-noised signal in Fig. 6b
its frequency domain. Comparing Figs. 4a and 4b we even though sharper and clearer could not preserve
observe that the de-noised signal in Fig. 4b is sharper the shape of the signal, but produce an image signal
and clearer, but produces an image signal along the in the negative axis confirming that Butterworth filter
negative axis, which implies a porous effect. Such may not be a good filter for ECG signal de-noising.
effect may not be good for an ECG de-noising filter. This is because the interpretation of ECG depends on
the signal shape and orientation; any change in the
orientation of the signal may lead to wrong diagnoses.
B. Performance Analysis
The performance analysis for the ECG
signal de-noising of the different sampled ECG
signals (104, 108, 109, 113, 117, 119, 209, 222, 230
and 232) using Butterworth filter has been carried out.
The analysis for SNR, MSE, and SIR were carried
our using equations 3 to 6 and are presented as shown
Fig. 5a: Noisy signal in time domain (signal 109)
in Table 1.
Table 1 presents the result of the performance
analysis of the Butterworth filter for ECG de-noising.
From Table 1 it can be observed that the SNR for the
ten (10) sampled ECG signals de-noised using
Butterworth filter varies from 0.20dB to 4.17dB with
a mean value of approximately 1.63dB, while the
MSE varies from 0.0118 to 0.78279 with a mean
value of approximately 0.2036, and the SIR varies
from -3.738dB to 1.887dB with a mean value of
Fig. 5b: De-noised signal in time domain (signal 109) approximately 0.259dB.
TABLE I
SNR, MSE and SIR values for ECG signal de-noising using Butterworth filter
S/NO ECG SIGNAL SNR (dB) MSE SIR (dB)
1 104 4.167281 0.029363 1.887332
2 108 2.772084 0.135608 -3.738311
3 109 1.591261 0.176809 -1.846677
4 113 0.201191 0.076766 0.980739
5 117 0.260447 0.723611 0.707065
6 119 0.860306 0.782789 1.162270
7 209 0.672459 0.011753 1.107870
8 222 0.860959 0.031407 0.866190
9 130 3.173209 0.038855 0.363691
10 232 1.772571 0.028811 1.100660
Mean 1.633177 0.203577 0.259083
However, this study has found that Butterworth Management of hospitals and cardiac health centres
filter in ECG de-noising is very poor in taking care of most understand the importance of SNR, MES and
the background/internal noise and it also allows co- SIR values in the selection of de-noising filters, so that
channel interference from other transmitters. Even while de-noising an ECG signal, the quality of the
though it has the tendency of maintaining a good fit signal can be maintain for a good diagnosis and
for the useful signal, it can create image signal which treatment of the cardiac patients.
are also noise and could affect the interpretation of the
ECG signals. These properties make it a poor filter for For further works, it is recommended that analysis
ECG de-noising as such cannot be recommended. that could compare two or more filters be done; so that
the best performance filter in terms of all the [17] M. Khan, F. Aslam, T. Zaidi, and S. A. Khan, “Wavelet
based ECG denoising using signal-noise residue method”, In
parameters analysed can be identified for a good and
2011 5th International Conference on Bioinformatics and
excellent ECG de-noising for better diagnosis and Biomedical Engineering, 2011, pp. 1-4. IEEE.
therapy. [18] H. Gholam-Hosseini, H. Nazeran, and K. J. Reynolds, “ECG
noise cancellation using digital filters”, In Proceedings of the
FUNDING 2nd International Conference on Bioelectromagnetism, 1998,
pp. 151-152. IEEE.
This research did not receive any specific grant [19] S. C. Pei, and C. C. Tseng, “Elimination of AC interference
from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or in electrocardiogram using IIR notch filter with transient
not-for-profit sectors. suppression”, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering,
vol. 42(11), pp. 1128-1132, 1995.
[20] J. M. Łęski, and N. Henzel, “ECG baseline wander and
REFERENCES power line interference reduction using nonlinear filter
[1] L. S. Lilly, “Pathophysiology of heart disease: a bank”, Signal Processing, vol. 85(4), pp. 781-793, 2005.
collaborative project of medical students and faculty”, 6th [21] J, A. Van, Alste, and T. S. Schilder, “Removal of base-line
Ed., Philadelphia, USA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Pp. wander and power-line interference from the ECG by an
74-75, 2012. efficient FIR filter with a reduced number of taps”, IEEE
[2] K. Harjeet, and R. Rajini, “ECG Signal de-noising with Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, vol. (12), pp. 1052-
Savitzky-Golay filter and discrete wavelet Transform (DWT)”, 1060, 1985.
International Journal of Engineering Trends and Technology, [22] M. Merah, T. A. Abdelmalik, and B. H. Larbi, “R-peaks
vol. 36(5), pp. 266-269, 2016. detection based on stationary wavelet transform”, Computer
[3] B. Sharma, and J. Suji, “Analysis of various window Methods and Programs in Biomedicine, vol. 121(3), pp. 149-
techniques used for denoising ECG signal”, In 2016 160, 2015.
Symposium on Colossal Data Analysis and Networking, [23] G. Bianchi, and R. Sorrentino, “Electronic filter simulation &
2016, pp. 1-5. design”, New York, USA: McGraw Hill Professional, Pp. 17-
[4] D. Sadhukhan, and M. Mitra, “R-peak detection algorithm 20, 2007.
for ECG using double difference and RR interval processing”, [24] S. Butterworth, “On the theory of filter amplifiers”, Wireless
Procedia Technology, vol. 4, pp. 873-877, 2012. Engineer, vol. 7(6), pp. 536-541, 1930.
[5] M. D. Wedeld, “Preliminary pre-processing of ECG-signals [25] (2019a). The Net Spot website. [Online]. Available:
for use in multivariate analysis”, MSc. Dissertation, https://www.netspotapp.com/help/what-is-the-signal-to-
University of Science and Technology Norwegian, 2018. noise/.
[6] B. U. Kohler, C. Hennig, and R. Orglmeister, “The principles [26] B. Bruner. (2003) Mean square error: definition and
of software QRS detection”, IEEE Engineering in Medicine examples home page on Study. [Online]. Available:
and Biology Magazine, vol. 21(1), pp. 42-57, 2002. https://study.com/academy/lesson/estimation-of-r-squared-
[7] G. Walraven, “Basic Arrhythmias”, 7th Ed., New York City. variance-of-epsilon-definition-examples.html.
USA: Pearson, Pp. 1-11, 2016. [27] S. U. Nnebe, G. N. Onoh, and C. O. Ohaneme, “Empirical
[8] C. Fisch, “Evolution of the clinical electrocardiogram”, Analysis of Signal-to-Interference Ratio Variations in IEEE
Journal of the American College of Cardiology vol. 14(5), pp. 802.11b WLAN”, International Journal of Innovative
1127-1138, 1989. https://doi.org/10.1016/0735- Research in Science, Engineering and Technology, vol. 1(2),
1097(89)90407-5 pp. 263-670, 2012.
[9] P. Libby, R. O. Bonow, D. L. Mann, and D. P. Zipes, [28] P. Suksompong. (2020) Co-channel Interference: Cellular
“Braunwald's Heart Disease: A Textbook of Cardiovascular Systems homepage on DocPlayer. [Online]. Available:
Medicine”, vol. 2, Elsevier Health Sciences, p. 108, 2007. https://docplayer.net/31071961-Ecs455-chapter-2-cellular-
[10] A. S. S. Ahmad, M. S. Matti, O. A. ALhabib, and S. systems.html.
Shaikhow, “Denoising of Arrhythmia ECG Signals”, [29] (2019b) The Net Spot website. [Online]. Available:
International Journal of Medical Research & Health Sciences, https://www.netspotapp.com/help/signal-to-interference-
vol. 7(3), pp. 83-93, 2018. ratio/. Accessed 16 March 2020
[11] A. Gupta, and S. Bhandari, “ECG noise reduction by [30] S. Sharma, and R. P. Narwaria, “Performance Evaluation of
different filters: A comparative analysis”, IJRCCT, vol. 4(7), Various Window Techniques for Noise Cancellation from
pp. 424-431, 2015. ECG Signal”, International Journal of Computer Applications,
[12] M. S. Sadooghi, and S. E. Khadem, “A new performance vol. 93(19), pp. 1-5, 2014. https://doi.org/10.5120/16464-
evaluation scheme for jet engine vibration signal de-noising”, 5826
Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing, vol. 76(1), pp. [31] P. Krishnamurthy, N. Swethaanjali, and M. A. B. Laxshmi,
201-212, 2016. “Comparison of various filtering techniques used for
[13] S. M. Salerno, P. C. Alguire, and H. S. Waxman, removing high frequency noise in ECG signal”, International
“Competency in interpretation of 12-lead electrocardiograms: Journal of Students Research in Technology & Management,
a summary and appraisal of published evidence”, Annals of vol. 3(1), pp. 211-215, 2015.
Internal Medicine, vol. 138(9), pp. 751-760, 2003. [32] D. Sadhukhan, and M. Mitra, “ECG noise reduction using
Doi:10.7326/0003-4819-138-9-200305060-00013. Fourier coefficient suppression”, In Proceedings of the 2014
[14] R. L. Jayes, G. C. Larsen, J. R. Beshansky, R. B. D’Agostino, International Conference on Control, Instrumentation, Energy
and H. P. Selker, “Physician electrocardiogram reading in and Communication, 2014, pp. 142-146.
the emergency department—Accuracy and effect on triage https://doi.org/10.1109/CIEC.2014.6959066.
decisions”, Journal of General Internal Medicine, vol. 7(4),
pp. 387-392, 1992.
[15] A. H. Kadish, A. E. Buxton, H. L. Kennedy, B. P. Knight, J.
W. Mason, C. D. Schuger, and J. W. Hirshfeld Jr, “ACC/AHA
clinical competence statement on electrocardiography and
ambulatory electrocardiography: A report of the AHA/ACP-
ASIM task force on clinical competence”, Endorsed by the
International Society for Holter and Noninvasive
Electrocardiology, Vol. 104, pp. 3169-3178, 2001.
[16] N. Rastogi, and R. Mehra, “Analysis of butterworth and
chebyshev filters for ECG denoising using wavelets”, IOSR
Journal of Electronics and Communication Engineering, vol.
6(6), pp. 37-44, 2013.