Cited by 62Non-Invasive Vital Sign MonitoringHeart Rate Variability and Autonomic ControlECG Monitoring and Analysis

Synthetic photoplethysmogram generation using two Gaussian functions

Open access
Tang, Qunfeng, Chen, Zhencheng, Ward, Rabab, Elgendi, Mohamed·2020·Scientific Reports

Abstract

Evaluating the performance of photoplethysmogram (PPG) event detection algorithms requires a large number of PPG signals with different noise levels and sampling frequencies. As publicly available PPG databases provide few options, artificially constructed PPG signals can also be used to facilitate this evaluation. Here, we propose a dynamic model to synthesize PPG over specified time durations and sampling frequencies. In this model, a single pulse was simulated by two Gaussian functions. Additionally, the beat-to-beat intervals were simulated using a normal distribution with a specific mean value and a specific standard deviation value. To add periodicity and to generate a complete signal, the circular motion principle was used. We synthesized three classes of pulses by emulating three different templates: excellent (systolic and diastolic waves are salient), acceptable (systolic and diastolic waves are not salient), and unfit (systolic and diastolic waves are noisy). The optimized model fitting of the Gaussian functions to the templates yielded 0.99, 0.98, and 0.85 correlations between the template and synthetic pulses for the excellent, acceptable, and unfit classes, respectively, with mean square errors of 0.001, 0.003, and 0.017, respectively. By comparing the heart rate variability of real PPG and randomly synthesized PPG for 5 min in 116 records from the MIMIC III database, strong correlations were found in SDNN, RMSSD, LF, HF, SD1, and SD2 (0.99, 0.89, 0.84, 0.89, 0.90 and 0.95, respectively).

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41598-020-69076-x

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tang, Q., Chen, Z., Ward, R., & Elgendi, M.
Affiliations
  • University of British Columbia (CA)
  • Guilin University of Electronic Technology (CN)
Corresponding author
  • Chen, Zhencheng
  • Elgendi, Mohamed
Venue
Scientific Reports
Published
2020-08-17
Volume
10
Issue
1
Pages
13883-13883
ISSN
2045-2322 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3049132276
Cited by
62
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 1
FWCI
2.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Scientific Reports (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (RGPIN-2014, 04462, RGPIN-2014-04462)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Non-Invasive Vital Sign Monitoring
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Heart Rate Variability and Autonomic Control
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › ECG Monitoring and Analysis
Keywords
photoplethysmogram, Gaussian fitting, heart rate variability, MIMIC-III

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review