I'm dealing with CWT, and I have a big problem converting scales to frequencies. In the MAtlab Wavelet Tutorial they use this expression to convert scales to frequencies
But if i use the default function scal2freq I obtain different result.
I don't understand the role of the Morlet Fourier Factor
Thanks in advance
It is a pretty complicated concept, which I somewhat understand it. I'll write some points here so that you might figure it out yourself, rather easier.
A simple fact is that:
Scale is inversely proportional to frequency.
For example, imagine we have a 1-100 Hz range of frequencies in some time series data such as stock markets data or earthquake data. Scale is "supposed to be" the inverse of that. For instance, if scale would be in range of 1 to 100, we'd have had:
Scale(1/Hz) Frequency (Hz)
1 100
50 50
100 1
Therefore,
The frequency is not the real frequency of those time series data (e.g., stock market, earthquake) that we know of. They are only related, inversely.
And we can safely say that here we are calculating some "pseudo-frequencies", which MATLAB does that (by approximating that). You can read about the approximation process in the documentation in the section pseudo-frequencies:
MATlAB does calculate those pseudo-frequencies based on:
In wavelet analysis, the way to relate scales to frequencies is to determine the center frequency of the wavelet function:
which you can visually see in this image and of-course it would differ, when we would change the types of our function in the calculation. Thus, that center frequency will change everytime in our approximation process:
That "MorletFourierFactor" is a variable to approximate a constant so that when you would do the 1/scale, it would closely approximate those "pseudo-frequencies".
I thought this image about shifting (time axis) and scaling (frequency axis) might be a little helpful to look into as well:
The bottom line is that don't worry about pseudo-frequencies, you wouldn't probably need those. If you would want any frequency spectrum, you can likely go towards applying some of those frequency methods (such as Fast Fourier Transform) on whatever time series data that you have.
If you really really want to map that, you can also try to design some methods to approximate it yourself.
Source
Harvard Seismology
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 have two (or more) time series that I would like to correlate with one another to look for common changes e.g. both rising or both falling etc.
The problem is that the time series are all fairly noisy with relatively high standard deviations meaning it is difficult to see common features. The signals are sampled at a fairly low frequency (one point every 30s) but cover reasonable time periods 2hours +. It is often the case that the two signs are not the same length, for example 1x1hour & 1x1.5 hours.
Can anyone suggest some good correlation techniques, ideally using built in or bespoke matlab routines? I've tried auto correlation just to compare lags within a single signal but all I got back is a triangular shape with the max at 0 lag (I assume this means there is no obvious correlation except with itself?) . Cross correlation isn't much better.
Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated.
Start with a cross-covariance (xcov) instead of the cross-correlation. xcov removes the DC component (subtracts off the mean) of each data set and then does the cross-correlation. When you cross-correlate two square waves, you get a triangle wave. If you have small signals riding on a large offset, you get a triangle wave with small variations in it.
If you think there is a delay between the two signals, then I would use xcorr to calculate the delay. Since xcorr is doing an FFT of the signal, you should remove the means before calling xcorr, you may also want to consider adding a window (e.g. hanning) to reduce leakage if the data is not self-windowing.
If there is no delay between the signals or you have found and removed the delay, you could just average the two (or more) signals. The random noise should tend to average to zero and the common features will approach the true value.
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.
Does anyone know how to use filters in MATLAB?
I am not an aficionado, so I'm not concerned with roll-off characteristics etc — I have a 1 dimensional signal vector x sampled at 100 kHz, and I want to perform a high pass filtering on it (say, rejecting anything below 10Hz) to remove the baseline drift.
There are Butterworth, Elliptical, and Chebychev filters described in the help, but no simple explanation as to how to implement.
There are several filters that can be used, and the actual choice of the filter will depend on what you're trying to achieve. Since you mentioned Butterworth, Chebyschev and Elliptical filters, I'm assuming you're looking for IIR filters in general.
Wikipedia is a good place to start reading up on the different filters and what they do. For example, Butterworth is maximally flat in the passband and the response rolls off in the stop band. In Chebyschev, you have a smooth response in either the passband (type 2) or the stop band (type 1) and larger, irregular ripples in the other and lastly, in Elliptical filters, there's ripples in both the bands. The following image is taken from wikipedia.
So in all three cases, you have to trade something for something else. In Butterworth, you get no ripples, but the frequency response roll off is slower. In the above figure, it takes from 0.4 to about 0.55 to get to half power. In Chebyschev, you get steeper roll off, but you have to allow for irregular and larger ripples in one of the bands, and in Elliptical, you get near-instant cut off, but you have ripples in both bands.
The choice of filter will depend entirely on your application. Are you trying to get a clean signal with little to no losses? Then you need something that gives you a smooth response in the passband (Butterworth/Cheby2). Are you trying to kill frequencies in the stopband, and you won't mind a minor loss in the response in the passband? Then you will need something that's smooth in the stop band (Cheby1). Do you need extremely sharp cut-off corners, i.e., anything a little beyond the passband is detrimental to your analysis? If so, you should use Elliptical filters.
The thing to remember about IIR filters is that they've got poles. Unlike FIR filters where you can increase the order of the filter with the only ramification being the filter delay, increasing the order of IIR filters will make the filter unstable. By unstable, I mean you will have poles that lie outside the unit circle. To see why this is so, you can read the wiki articles on IIR filters, especially the part on stability.
To further illustrate my point, consider the following band pass filter.
fpass=[0.05 0.2];%# passband
fstop=[0.045 0.205]; %# frequency where it rolls off to half power
Rpass=1;%# max permissible ripples in stopband (dB)
Astop=40;%# min 40dB attenuation
n=cheb2ord(fpass,fstop,Rpass,Astop);%# calculate minimum filter order to achieve these design requirements
[b,a]=cheby2(n,Astop,fstop);
Now if you look at the zero-pole diagram using zplane(b,a), you'll see that there are several poles (x) lying outside the unit circle, which makes this approach unstable.
and this is evident from the fact that the frequency response is all haywire. Use freqz(b,a) to get the following
To get a more stable filter with your exact design requirements, you'll need to use second order filters using the z-p-k method instead of b-a, in MATLAB. Here's how for the same filter as above:
[z,p,k]=cheby2(n,Astop,fstop);
[s,g]=zp2sos(z,p,k);%# create second order sections
Hd=dfilt.df2sos(s,g);%# create a dfilt object.
Now if you look at the characteristics of this filter, you'll see that all the poles lie inside the unit circle (hence stable) and matches the design requirements
The approach is similar for butter and ellip, with equivalent buttord and ellipord. The MATLAB documentation also has good examples on designing filters. You can build upon these examples and mine to design a filter according to what you want.
To use the filter on your data, you can either do filter(b,a,data) or filter(Hd,data) depending on what filter you eventually use. If you want zero phase distortion, use filtfilt. However, this does not accept dfilt objects. So to zero-phase filter with Hd, use the filtfilthd file available on the Mathworks file exchange site
EDIT
This is in response to #DarenW's comment. Smoothing and filtering are two different operations, and although they're similar in some regards (moving average is a low pass filter), you can't simply substitute one for the other unless it you can be sure that it won't be of concern in the specific application.
For example, implementing Daren's suggestion on a linear chirp signal from 0-25kHz, sampled at 100kHz, this the frequency spectrum after smoothing with a Gaussian filter
Sure, the drift close to 10Hz is almost nil. However, the operation has completely changed the nature of the frequency components in the original signal. This discrepancy comes about because they completely ignored the roll-off of the smoothing operation (see red line), and assumed that it would be flat zero. If that were true, then the subtraction would've worked. But alas, that is not the case, which is why an entire field on designing filters exists.
Create your filter - for example using [B,A] = butter(N,Wn,'high') where N is the order of the filter - if you are unsure what this is, just set it to 10. Wn is the cutoff frequency normalized between 0 and 1, with 1 corresponding to half the sample rate of the signal. If your sample rate is fs, and you want a cutoff frequency of 10 Hz, you need to set Wn = (10/(fs/2)).
You can then apply the filter by using Y = filter(B,A,X) where X is your signal. You can also look into the filtfilt function.
A cheapo way to do this kind of filtering that doesn't involve straining brain cells on design, zeros and poles and ripple and all that, is:
* Make a copy of the signal
* Smooth it. For a 100KHz signal and wanting to eliminate about 10Hz on down, you'll need to smooth over about 10,000 points. Use a Gaussian smoother, or a box smoother maybe 1/2 that width twice, or whatever is handy. (A simple box smoother of total width 10,000 used once may produce unwanted edge effects)
* Subtract the smoothed version from the original. Baseline drift will be gone.
If the original signal is spikey, you may want to use a short median filter before the big smoother.
This generalizes easily to 2D images, 3D volume data, whatever.