The non-linear analysis of medium- and high-dimensional signals (HDS) encounters often difficulties due to the problem of the choice of the proper window width. This problem occurs due to the fact that the autocorrelation time (τ) of HDS reflecting the natural scale of the signal is similar or higher than the predictability of HDS and the predictability points to some degree to the maximal acceptable window width (W). The new approach to the embedding process is proposed in this paper that uses the constant W instead of the constant L. The lag is calculated by using the formula L = W/(m − 1). If L is non-integer, the cubic interpolation is performed to find the values of the signal between the given points. A forecasting analysis of two signals of the known structure and dimensional complexity is performed by employing the new approach. The analyzed signals consist of 3 and 4 Lorenz signals of different time scales, respectively. The used measure of the predictability is the predictive time t p05 that is defined as the prediction time for which the correlation coefficient ρ between the real and the predicted points equals 0.5. The relations t p05(W) possess the maxima that correspond to the autocorrelation times of the individual components. These maxima are observed approximately at W i = (0.6–1)τ i , where i is the index of the given component of the signal. The saturation of predictability is observed for consecutive maxima in most cases at the embedding dimension equal to about \( m_{i}^{*} \) = 2 · d k + 1, where d k is the sum of the dimensional complexities of the components, whose autocorrelation time is equal or less than the W i . Thus, it is clearly visible that only the components of the time scale equal or less than W i are demonstrated in the results of the analysis.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this article Subscribe and saveSpringer+ Basic
€34.99 /Month
Price includes VAT (Germany)
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others Explore related subjectsDiscover the latest articles and news from researchers in related subjects, suggested using machine learning. ReferencesBlinowska, K. J., and M. Malinowski. Non-linear and linear forecasting of the EEG time series. Biol. Cybern. 66:159–165, 1991.
Casdagli, M. Nonlinear prediction of chaotic time series. Physica D 35:335–356, 1989.
Farmer, J. D., and J. J. Sidorovich. Predicting chaotic time series. Phys. Lett. 59(8):845–848, 1987.
Garcia, S. P., and J. S. Almeida. Multivariate phase space reconstruction by nearest neighbor embedding with different time delays. Phys. Rev. E 72:027205-1–027205-4, 2005.
Hernandez, J. L., J. L. Valdez, R. Biscay, J. C. Jimenez, and P. Valdez. EEG predictability: adequacy of non-linear forecasting methods. Int. J. Biomed. Comput. 38:197–206, 1995.
Kennel, M. B., and S. Isabelle. Method to distinguish chaos from colored noise to determine embedding parameters. Phys. Rev. A 46(6):3111–3118, 1992.
Michalak, K. P., and P. Jaskowski. Predictability of posturographic signals: influence of the window width and embedding dimension. Biocybern. Biomed. Eng. 27(4):71–83, 2007.
Pritchard, D., and D. W. Duke. Measuring chaos in the brain: a tutorial review of nonlinear dynamical EEG analysis. Int. J. Neurosci. 67:31–80, 1992.
Rapp, P. E. A guide to dynamical analysis. Integr. Physiol. Behav. Sci. 29(3):311–327, 1994.
Rapp, P. E., A. M. Albano, T. I. Schmah, and L. A. Farwell. Filtered noise can mimic low-dimensional chaotic attractors. Phys. Rev. E 47(4):2289–2297, 1993.
Rapp, P. E., A. M. Albano, I. D. Zimmerman, and M. A. Jimenez-Montano. Phase-randomized surrogates can produce spurious identifications of non-random structure. Phys. Lett. A 192:27–33, 1994.
Smith, R. L. Optimal estimation of fractal dimension. In: Nonlinear Modeling and Forecasting. Vol. XII of SFI Studies in the Sciences of Complexity. Addison-Wesley, 1992, pp. 115–136.
Sugihara, G., and R. M. May. Nonlinear forecasting as way of distinguishing chaos from measurement error in time series. Nature 344:734–741, 1990.
Theiler, J. Some comments on the correlation dimension of 1/falfa noise. Phys. Lett. A 155:480–493, 1991.
Tsonis, A. A., and J. B. Elsner. Nonlinear prediction as way of distinguishing chaos from random fractal sequences. Nature 358:217–220, 1992.
Verdes, P. F., P. M. Granitto, and H. A. Ceccatto. An overembedding method for modeling nonstationary systems. Phys. Rev. Lett. 24(96):1–4, 2006.
Wales, D. J. Calculating the rate of loss of information from chaotic time series by forecasting. Lett. Nat. 350:485–488, 1991.
Watters, P. A. Selecting parameters for phase space reconstruction of the electrocorticogram (ECoG). J. Integr. Neurosci. 4(2):169–182, 2005.
Department of Biophysics, Poznań University of Medical Sciences, Fredry Str. 10, 61-701, Poznan, Poland
Krzysztof Piotr Michalak
Correspondence to Krzysztof Piotr Michalak.
About this article Cite this articleMichalak, K.P. Distinguishing Separate Components in High-dimensional Signals by Using the Modified Embedding Method and Forecasting. Ann Biomed Eng 38, 200–207 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10439-009-9820-0
Received: 02 July 2009
Accepted: 06 October 2009
Published: 14 October 2009
Issue Date: January 2010
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10439-009-9820-0
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4