Sleep is a growing area of research interest in medicine and neuroscience. Actually, one major concern is to find a correlation between several physiologic variables and sleep stages. There is a scientific agreement on the characteristics of the five stages of human sleep, based on EEG analysis. Nevertheless, manual stage classification is still the most widely used approach. This work proposes a new automatic sleep classification method based on unsupervised feature classification algorithms recently developed, and on EEG entropy measures. This scheme extracts entropy metrics from EEG records to obtain a feature vector. Then, these features are optimized in terms of relevance using the Q-α algorithm. Finally, the resulting set of features is entered into a clustering procedure to obtain a final segmentation of the sleep stages. The proposed method reached up to an average of 80% correctly classified stages for each patient separately while keeping the computational cost low.

Entropy estimation metrics have become a widely used method to identify subtle changes or hidden features in biomedical records. These methods have been more effective than conventional linear techniques in a number of signal classification applications, specially the healthy-pathological segmentation dichotomy. Nevertheless, a thorough characterization of these measures, namely, how to match metric and signal features, is still lacking. This paper studies a specific characterization problem: the influence of missing samples in biomedical records. The assessment is conducted using four of the most popular entropy metrics: Approximate Entropy, Sample Entropy, Fuzzy Entropy, and Detrended Fluctuation Analysis. The rationale of this study is that missing samples are a signal disturbance that can arise in many cases: signal compression, non-uniform sampling, or data transmission stages. It is of great interest to determine if these real situations can impair the capability of segmenting signal classes using such metrics. The experiments employed several biosignals: electroencephalograms, gait records, and RR time series. Samples of these signals were systematically removed, and the entropy computed for each case. The results showed that these metrics are robust against missing samples: With a data loss percentage of 50% or even higher, the methods were still able to distinguish among signal classes.

No abstract

Most cardiac arrhythmias can be classified as atrial flutter, focal atrial tachycardia, or atrial fibrillation. They have been usually treated using drugs, but catheter ablation has proven more effective. This is an invasive method devised to destroy the heart tissue that disturbs correct heart rhythm. In order to accurately localise the focus of this disturbance, the acquisition and processing of atrial electrograms form the usual mapping technique. They can be single potentials, double potentials, or complex fractionated atrial electrogram (CFAE) potentials, and last ones are the most effective targets for ablation. The electrophysiological substrate is then localised by a suitable signal processing method. Sample Entropy is a statistic scarcely applied to electrograms but can arguably become a powerful tool to analyse these time series, supported by its results in other similar biomedical applications. However, the lack of an analysis of its dependence on the perturbations usually found in electrogram data, such as missing samples or spikes, is even more marked. This paper applied SampEn to the segmentation between non-CFAE and CFAE records and assessed its class segmentation power loss at different levels of these perturbations. The results confirmed that SampEn was able to significantly distinguish between non-CFAE and CFAE records, even under very unfavourable conditions, such as 50% of missing data or 10% of spikes.

This study compares two signal entropy measures, Sample Entropy (SampEn) and Detrended Fluctuation Analysis (DFA) over real EEG signals after a randomized sample removal. Both measures have demonstrated their ability to discern between, among others: control and pathologic EEG signals, seizure free or not, control and opened eyes EEG, and side of brain signals. Results show that SampEn behaves better when analyzing control signals, while DFA provides better segmentation results between epileptic signals, in the context of sample loss, particularly when discerning between seizure and seizure free signal intervals.