Time-Frequency Analysis of Clinical Percussion Signals Using Matrix Pencil Method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper discusses time-frequency analysis of clinical percussion signals produced by tapping over human chest or abdomen with a neurological hammer and recorded with an air microphone. The analysis of short, highly damped percussion signals using conventional time-frequency distributions (TFDs) meets certain difficulties, such as poor time-frequency localization, cross terms, and masking of the lower energy features by the higher energy ones. The above shortcomings lead to inaccurate and ambiguous representation of the signal behavior in the time-frequency plane. This work describes an attempt to construct a TF representation specifically tailored to clinical percussion signals to achieve better resolution of individual components corresponding to physical oscillation modes. Matrix Pencil Method (MPM) is used to decompose the signal into a set of exponentially damped sinusoids, which are then plotted in the time-frequency plane. Such representation provides better visualization of the signal structure than the commonly used frequency-amplitude plots and facilitates tracking subtle changes in the signal for diagnostic purposes. The performance of our approach has been verified on both ideal and real percussion signals. The MPM-based time-frequency analysis appears to be a better choice for clinical percussion signals than conventional TFDs, while its ability to visualize damping has immediate practical applications.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".