Document Type
Article
Publication Date
10-22-2017
Abstract
The aim of this investigation was to compare and contrast the use of cross sample entropy (xSE) and cross recurrence quantification analysis (cRQA) measures for the assessment of coupling of rhythmical patterns. Measures were assessed using simulated signals with regular, chaotic, and random fluctuations in frequency, amplitude, and a combination of both. Biological data were studied as models of normal and abnormal locomotor-respiratory coupling. Nine signal types were generated for seven frequency ratios. Fifteen patients with COPD (abnormal coupling) and twenty-one healthy controls (normal coupling) walked on a treadmill at three speeds while breathing and walking were recorded. xSE and the cRQA measures of percent determinism,maximum line,mean line, and entropy were quantified for both the simulated and experimental data. In the simulated data, xSE, percent determinism, and entropy were influenced by the frequency manipulation. The 1 : 1 frequency ratio was different than other frequency ratios for almost all measures and/or manipulations. The patients with COPD used a 2 : 3 ratio more often and xSE, percent determinism,maximum line, mean line, and cRQA entropy were able to discriminate between the groups. Analysis of the effects of walking speed indicated that all measures were able to discriminate between speeds.
Journal Title
Computational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine
Volume
2017
First Page
1
Last Page
11
Recommended Citation
McCamley, John D.; Denton, William; Lyden, Elizabeth E.; and Yentes, Jennifer M., "Measuring Coupling of Rhythmical Time Series Using Cross Sample Entropy and Cross Recurrence Quantification Analysis" (2017). Journal Articles. 182.
https://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/biomechanicsarticles/182
Comments
Copyright © 2017 John McCamley et al.This is an open access article distributed under theCreativeCommonsAttribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/7960467