2016
DOI: 10.1007/s10479-016-2187-3
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A comparative stationarity analysis of EEG signals

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
10
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
7
1
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 19 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 25 publications
0
10
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The window size includes N −1 observations from the previous data points and the current data point, where N is the window size. Generally, the window size of a moving-average filter is determined based on complementary issues of better smoothing and the cost of significant delay (shift) incurred [ 42 , 43 ]. A small window size often generates less delay (shift) but at the cost of more short-term features and having a larger window size will smoothen the data in a better manner but at the cost of significant delay in the timeliness of detecting the infection incidence.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The window size includes N −1 observations from the previous data points and the current data point, where N is the window size. Generally, the window size of a moving-average filter is determined based on complementary issues of better smoothing and the cost of significant delay (shift) incurred [ 42 , 43 ]. A small window size often generates less delay (shift) but at the cost of more short-term features and having a larger window size will smoothen the data in a better manner but at the cost of significant delay in the timeliness of detecting the infection incidence.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Exemplar data depicting the model’s input features for 2 specific patient years with and without infection are shown in Figures 1 - 4 , and a more detailed description of the input features for 10-patient years with and without infection incidences can be found in Multimedia Appendix 2 [ 12 , 19 ]. The data were resampled and imputed in accordance with the description provided by Woldaregay et al [ 19 ], and the preprocessed data were smoothed using a moving average filter of 2 days’ (48 hours) window size to remove short-term and small-scale features [ 19 , 40 , 41 ]. Feature scaling was carried out using min-max scaling [ 42 ] to normalize the data between 0 and 1, which is important to ensure that larger parameters do not dominate the smaller ones.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Exemplar data depicting the model's input features for 2 specific patient years with and without infection are shown in Figures 1-4, and a more detailed description of the input features for 10-patient years with and without infection incidences can be found in Multimedia Appendix 2 [12,19]. The data were resampled and imputed in accordance with the description provided by Woldaregay et al [19], and the preprocessed data were smoothed using a moving average filter of 2 days' (48 hours) window size to remove short-term and small-scale features [19,40,41]. Feature scaling was carried out using min-max scaling [42] to normalize the data between 0 and 1, which is important to ensure that larger parameters do not dominate the smaller ones.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%