I'm a neuroscientist, and not a very good one. My colleague has kindly provided me with a noisy voltage measurements of the PY neuron of the Stomatogastric Ganglion of the lobster.
The activity of this neuron is characterised by a slow depolarised plateaux with fast spikes on top (a burst).
Both idealised and noisy versions are presented here for you to peruse at your leisure.
It's my job to extract the spike times from the noisy signal but this is so far beyond my experience level I have no idea where to begin. Fortunately, I am a total ninja at Matlab.
Could someone kindly provide me with the name of the procedure, filter or smoothing function which is best suited for this task. Or even the appropriate forum to ask such an asinine question.
Presumably, it needs to increase the signal to noise ratio? The problem here seems to be determining the difference between noise and a bona fide spike as the margin between the two is quite small.
UPDATE: 02/07/2013
I have tried the following filters in Matlab with mixed results. It's still very hard to say what is noise and what is a spike.
Lowpass Butterworth filter,
median filter,
gaussian,
moving weighted window,
moving average filter,
smooth,
sgolay filter.
This may not be an adequate response for stackoverflow - but one way of increasing a signal to noise ratio in your case is to average parts of the signal.
low pass your signal to remove noise (and spikes), and find the minima of the filtered signal (from your image, one minimum every 600 data points). Keep the indexes of each minimum,
on the noisy signal, for each minimum index, select the consecutive 700 data points. If you have 50 minima, you should have a 50 by 700 matrix,
average your matrix. You should have a 1 by 700 vector.
By averaging parts of the signal (minimum-locked potentials), you will take advantage of two properties: noise is zero-mean (well, it should be), and the signal of interest is repetitive. The first will therefore decrease as you pile up potentials, and the second will increase. With this process however, you will lose the spike times for each slow wave figure, but at least have them for blocks of 50 minima.
This technique is known in neuroscience as event-related potential (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event-related_potential). It may not fit perfectly your signal, or the result may not give nice spikes, but you may extract the spike times for some periods of interest (given the nature of your signal, I would say that you would need 5 or 10 potentials to see an emerging mean activity).
There are some toolboxes that do part of the job (but I would program it myself given the complexity of the task). These are eeglab or fieldtrip. They have a bunch of filter/decomposition options too, as well as some statistical features.
Related
I have a lot of mixed files, and from those files I would like to keep those that correspond to EEG recordings.
The problem is that some EEG files are supposed to be recorded with 2, 4, 5 and 6 channels, and that there also is other data (of unknown type) that also have the same amount of channels (I already filtered those that don't have these amount of channels). And of course, there are thousands of files, so manual inspection isn't really an option.
So, is there some kind of metric or algorithm that helps me to differentiate non-EEG signal from EEG ones? With MATLAB if possible.
You might first try comparing statistics such as mean, std and kurtosis of each channel relative to known good channels. Since you have lots of files, you would probably want to the sample possible matches in a few places (e.g., compare seconds 1-3 and say 7-9) and then get a probability of match. Interesting question!
This is not really a MATLAB question, but...
What is (potentially) in the other recordings? Perhaps it is easier to filter them out than it is to identify EEG specifically.
I don't know of any metric or algorithm that can identify EEG recordings. One problem is that EEG recordings often contain artefacts to varying degrees such as muscle activity, line noise, and any other electromagnetic interference in the room that make the recording nonspecific to cortical activity.
The frequency spectrum may be one meaningful measure. Cortical activity usually tapers off in power towards, say, 40 Hz, and tends to have some peaks before. For example, depending on the placement of EEG electrodes and the task that was being performed, a peak in the alpha band (around 10 Hz) may be prominent. This is assuming there is little interference from artefacts.
Also the amplitude of the signal may be something to look at.
Perhaps you could take a number of measures and statistical properties (e.g. powers in different frequency bands, variance, drift/slope, amplitude, etc.), cluster them using e.g. t-SNE, and, assuming you get clearly separable clusters, identify a few samples from each cluster by hand to figure out which is the EEG cluster.
Review for removing periodicsI have a dataset that contains hourly wind speed data for 7 seven. I am trying to implement a forecasting model to the data and the review paper states that trimming of diurnal, weekly, monthly, and annual patterns in data significantly enhances estimation accuracy. They then follow along by using the fourier series to remove the periodic components as seen in the image. Any ideas on how i model this in matlab?
I am afraid this topic is not explained "urgently". What you need is a filter for the respective frequencies and a certain number of their harmonics. You can implement such a filter with an fft or directly with a IIR/FIR-formula.
FFT is faster than a IIR/FIR-implementation, but requires some care with respect to window function. Even if you do a "continuous" DFT, you will have a window function (like exponential or gaussian). The window function determines the bandwidth. The wider the window, the smaller the bandwidth. With an IIR/FIR-filter the bandwidth is encoded in the recursive parameters.
For suppressing single frequencies (like the 24hr weather signal) you need a notch-filter. This also requires you to specify a bandwidth, as you can see in the linked article. The smaller the bandwidth, the longer it will take (in time) until the filter has evolved to the frequency to suppress it. If you want the filter to recognize the amplitude of the 24hr-signal fast, then you need a wider bandwidth. But then however you are going to suppress also more frequencies slightly lower and slightly higher than 1/24hrs. It's a tradeoff.
If you also want to suppress several harmonics (like described in the paper) you have to combine several notch-filters in series. If you want to do it with FFT, you have to model the desired transfer function in the frequency space and since you can do this for all frequencies at once, so it's more efficient.
An easy but approximate way to get something similar to a notch-filter including all harmonics is with a Comb-filter. But it's an approximation, you have no control over the details of the transfer function. You could do that in Matlab by adding to the original a signal that is shifted by 12hrs. This is because a sinusoidal signal will cancel with one that is shifted by pi.
So you see, there's lots of possibilities for what you want.
I use Matlab to calculate the fft result of a time series data. The signal has an unknown fundamental frequency (~80 MHz in this case), together with several high order harmonics (1-20th order). However, due to finite sampling frequency (500 MHz in this case), I always get the mixing frequencies from high order frequency (7-20), e.g. 7th with a peak at abs(2*500-80*7)=440 MHz, 8th with frequency 360 MHz and 13th with a peak at abs(13*80-2*500)=40 MHz. Does anyone know how to get rid of these artificial mixing frequencies? One possible way is to increase the sampling frequency to sufficient large value. However, my data set has fixed number of data and time range. So the sampling frequency is actually determined by the property of the data set. Any solutions to this problem?
(I have image for this problem but I don't have enough reputation to post a image. Sorry for bring inconvenience for understanding this question)
You are hitting on a fundamental property of sampling - when you sample data at a fixed frequency fs, you cannot tell the difference between two signals with the same amplitude but different frequencies, where one has f1=fs/2 - d and the other has f2=f2/2 + d. This effect is frequently used to advantage - for example in mixers - but at other times, it's an inconvenience.
Unless you are looking for this mixing effect (done, for example, at the digital receiver in a modern MRI scanner), you need to apply a "brick wall filter" with a cutoff frequency of fs/2. It is not uncommon to have filters with a roll-off of 24 dB / octave or higher - in other words, they let "everything through" below the cutoff, and "stop everything" above it.
Data acquisition vendors will often supply filtering solutions with their ADC boards for exactly this reason.
Long way to say: "That's how digitization works". But it's true - that is how digitization works.
Typically, one low-pass filters the signal to below half the sample rate before sampling. Otherwise, after sampling, there is usually no way to separate any aliased high frequency noise (your high order harmonics) from the more useful spectrum below (Nyquist) half the sample rate.
If you don't filter the signal before sampling it, the defect is inherent in the sample vector, not the FFT.
I'm running a PIV analysis on two consecutive images taken during an experiment to get the vector field. But I would like to know, based on what criteria do I have to choose the percentage of overlap between the tow images for the cross-correlation process? 50%, 75%...? The PIVlab_GUI tool designed for MATLAB chooses a 50% overlap by default, but it allows changing it.
I just want to know the criteria based on which I can know how much overlap is best? Do the vectors become less accurate, dependent.etc, as we increase/decrease the overlap?
My book "Fluid Mechanics Measurements" does not explain how to choose the overlap amount in the cross-correlation process, and I could not find any helpful online reference.
Any help is appreciated.
I suggest you read up on spectral estimation - which is basically equivalent to cross correlation when you segment the data and average the correlation estimates calculated from each segment (the cross correlation is the inverse Fourier transform of the cross spectrum). There's a book chapter on this stuff here, but you may want to find a more complete resource if you are unclear on the basics.
A short answer: increasing the overlap will increase the frequency resolution of the spectral estimate, and give you more segments to average over; your estimate will have a lower variance. But there are diminishing statistical returns the more you increase your overlap past 50%, while the computational complexity continues to rise (more segments = more calculations). Hence most people just choose 50% and have done with it.
It's important to note that you don't get any more information by using overlapping frames, you are simply increasing the frequency resolution (or time lag resolution, for correlation) - similar to the effect of zero-padding a signal before taking its Fourier transform - and this has statistical effects due to the way estimation of this type works.
I have FFT outputs that look like this:
At 523 Hz is the maximum value. However, being a messy FFT, there are lots of little peaks that are right near the large peaks. However, they're irrelevant, whereas the peaks shown aren't. Are the any algorithms I can use to extract the maxima of this FFT that matter; I.E., aren't just random peaks cropping up near "real" peaks? Perhaps there is some sort of filter I can apply to this FFT output?
EDIT: The context of this is that I am trying to take one-hit sound samples (like someone pressing a key on a piano) and extract the loudest partials. In the image below, the peaks above 2000 Hz are important, because they are discrete partials of the given sound (which happens to be a sort of bell). However, the peaks that are scattered about right near 523 seem to be just artifacts, and I want to ignore them.
If the peak is broad, it could indicate that the peak frequency is modulated (AM, FM or both), or is actually a composite of several spectral peaks, themselves each potentially modulated.
For instance, a piano note may be the result of the hammer hitting up to 3 strings that are all tuned just a tiny fraction differently, and they all can modulate as they exchange energy between strings though the piano frame. Guitar strings can change frequency as the pluck shape distortion smooths out and decays. Bells change shape after they are hit, which can modulate their spectrum. Etc.
If the sound itself is "messy" then you need a good definition of what you mean by the "real" peak, before applying any sort of smoothing or side-band rejection filter. e.g. All that "messiness" may be part of what makes a bell sound like a real bell instead of an electronic sinewave generator.
Try convolving your FFT (treating it as a signal) with a rectangular pulse( pulse = ones(1:20)/20; ). This might get rid of some of them. Your maxima will be shifted by 10 frequency bins to teh right, to take that into account. You would basically be integrating your signal. Similar techniques are used in Pan-Tompkins algorithm for heart beat identification.
I worked on a similar problem once, and choosed to use savitsky-golay filters for smoothing the spectrum data. I could get some significant peaks, and it didn't messed too much with the overall spectrum.
But I Had a problem with what hotpaw2 is alerting you, I have lost important characteristics along with the lost of "messiness", so I truly recommend you hear him. But, if you think you won't have a problem with that, I think savitsky-golay can help.
There are non-FFT methods for creating a frequency domain representation of time domain data which are better for noisy data sets, like Max-ent recontruction.
For noisy time-series data, a max-ent reconstruction will be capable of distinguising true peaks from noise very effectively (without adding any artifacts or other modifications to suppress noise).
Max ent works by "guessing" an FFT for a time domain specturm, and then doing an IFT, and comparing the results with the "actual" time-series data, iteratively. The final output of maxent is a frequency domain spectrum (like the one you show above).
There are implementations in java i believe for 1-d spectra, but I have never used one.