(I posted this in comp.dsp a couple of weeks ago, but most of the actual DSP people seem to have disappeared, so the discussion petered out fairly fast. Trying again here.) Hi, all, Hoping there are still some DSP folks round here despite the evil Google ban. (But I repeat myself.) I'm working on a completely noninvasive sensor for fetal blood oxygen, using optical sensing through the mom's abdomen. It's a very low SNR measurement on account of all the attenuation. The mom's heartbeat modulates her pulse-ox signal, which is much stronger than the fetus's on account of the scattering and absorption in maternal tissue. The data are several time series. The main issue is the variability of both pulses, which smear out the spectra and therefore knock the peak heights way down towards the noise. There are weak multiplicative effects between maternal and fetal signals, as you'd expect. What I'm looking to do is something like: 1. Use a digital PLL to find the time-dependent maternal pulse rate. 2. Resample the data accordingly, and notch out the first 5 or so mom harmonics. 3. Do the PLL thing on the fetal pulse, and signal average to pull out the average fetal pulse ox signal. Extra credit: sometimes the baby's pulse can cross the first or second harmonic of the mom's, and it would be good to preserve both pulse shapes accurately. Resampling a noisy signal isn't necessarily the most well-conditioned operation, so I'd welcome suggestions for just how to do this. Thanks Phil Hobbs -- Dr Philip C D Hobbs Principal Consultant ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics Briarcliff Manor NY 10510 http://electrooptical.net http://hobbs-eo.com
Recovering one irregular signal in the presence of another stronger one--_in utero_ pulse ox
Started by ●June 6, 2021
Reply by ●June 6, 20212021-06-06
Phil Hobbs wrote:> (I posted this in comp.dsp a couple of weeks ago, but most of the actual > DSP people seem to have disappeared, so the discussion petered out > fairly fast. Trying again here.) > >Crap. Sorry! Cheers Phil Hobbs
Reply by ●June 11, 20212021-06-11
On Sun, 6 Jun 2021 14:45:11 -0400, Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:>Phil Hobbs wrote: >> (I posted this in comp.dsp a couple of weeks ago, but most of the actual >> DSP people seem to have disappeared, so the discussion petered out >> fairly fast.� Trying again here.) >> >> >Crap. Sorry! > >Cheers > >Phil HobbsSorry about what ? It's an interesting project but my digital PLL skills are a bit lacking. At least in software which is where I would like to be better at. I do know about acquiring ECGs but only using diff amps. Might be a good question for the "dsprelated" forum along with embeddedrelated and all that stuff. boB
Reply by ●June 11, 20212021-06-11
boB wrote:> On Sun, 6 Jun 2021 14:45:11 -0400, Phil Hobbs > <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote: > >> Phil Hobbs wrote: >>> (I posted this in comp.dsp a couple of weeks ago, but most of the actual >>> DSP people seem to have disappeared, so the discussion petered out >>> fairly fast. Trying again here.) >>> >>> >> Crap. Sorry! >>> > Sorry about what ?Posting the same thing here twice, when I intended the second one to go to sci.electronics.design.> > It's an interesting project but my digital PLL skills are a bit > lacking. At least in software which is where I would like to be > better at. > > I do know about acquiring ECGs but only using diff amps. > > Might be a good question for the "dsprelated" forum along with > embeddedrelated and all that stuff.Thanks. I pretty well keep to Usenet. Cheers Phil Hobbs