Expiratory and Inspiratory Cries Detection Using Different Signals' Decomposition Techniques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper addresses the problem of automatic cry signal segmentation for the purposes of infant cry analysis. The main goal is to automatically detect expiratory and inspiratory phases from recorded cry signals. The approach used in this paper is made up of three stages: signal decomposition, features extraction, and classification. In the first stage, short-time Fourier transform, empirical mode decomposition (EMD), and wavelet packet transform have been considered. In the second stage, various set of features have been extracted, and in the third stage, two supervised learning methods, Gaussian mixture models and hidden Markov models, with four and five states, have been discussed as well. The main goal of this work is to investigate the EMD performance and to compare it with the other standard decomposition techniques. A combination of two and three intrinsic mode functions (IMFs) that resulted from EMD has been used to represent cry signal. The performance of nine different segmentation systems has been evaluated. The experiments for each system have been repeated several times with different training and testing datasets, randomly chosen using a 10-fold cross-validation procedure. The lowest global classification error rates of around 8.9% and 11.06% have been achieved using a Gaussian mixture models classifier and a hidden Markov models classifier, respectively. Among all IMF combinations, the winner combination is IMF3+IMF4+IMF5.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".