↓ Skip to main content

Sleep spindle and K-complex detection using tunable Q-factor wavelet transform and morphological component analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
83 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Sleep spindle and K-complex detection using tunable Q-factor wavelet transform and morphological component analysis
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, July 2015
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2015.00414
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tarek Lajnef, Sahbi Chaibi, Jean-Baptiste Eichenlaub, Perrine M. Ruby, Pierre-Emmanuel Aguera, Mounir Samet, Abdennaceur Kachouri, Karim Jerbi

Abstract

A novel framework for joint detection of sleep spindles and K-complex events, two hallmarks of sleep stage S2, is proposed. Sleep electroencephalography (EEG) signals are split into oscillatory (spindles) and transient (K-complex) components. This decomposition is conveniently achieved by applying morphological component analysis (MCA) to a sparse representation of EEG segments obtained by the recently introduced discrete tunable Q-factor wavelet transform (TQWT). Tuning the Q-factor provides a convenient and elegant tool to naturally decompose the signal into an oscillatory and a transient component. The actual detection step relies on thresholding (i) the transient component to reveal K-complexes and (ii) the time-frequency representation of the oscillatory component to identify sleep spindles. Optimal thresholds are derived from ROC-like curves (sensitivity vs. FDR) on training sets and the performance of the method is assessed on test data sets. We assessed the performance of our method using full-night sleep EEG data we collected from 14 participants. In comparison to visual scoring (Expert 1), the proposed method detected spindles with a sensitivity of 83.18% and false discovery rate (FDR) of 39%, while K-complexes were detected with a sensitivity of 81.57% and an FDR of 29.54%. Similar performances were obtained when using a second expert as benchmark. In addition, when the TQWT and MCA steps were excluded from the pipeline the detection sensitivities dropped down to 70% for spindles and to 76.97% for K-complexes, while the FDR rose up to 43.62 and 49.09%, respectively. Finally, we also evaluated the performance of the proposed method on a set of publicly available sleep EEG recordings. Overall, the results we obtained suggest that the TQWT-MCA method may be a valuable alternative to existing spindle and K-complex detection methods. Paths for improvements and further validations with large-scale standard open-access benchmarking data sets are discussed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 83 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 2 2%
France 1 1%
Peru 1 1%
Unknown 79 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 17 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 18%
Student > Master 10 12%
Student > Bachelor 6 7%
Other 5 6%
Other 11 13%
Unknown 19 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 15 18%
Neuroscience 12 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 7%
Psychology 5 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 5%
Other 16 19%
Unknown 25 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 July 2015.
All research outputs
#17,766,929
of 22,818,766 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#5,707
of 7,148 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#176,888
of 263,394 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#113
of 144 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,818,766 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,148 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 263,394 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 144 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.