2009 International Joint Conference on Computational Sciences and Optimization
An Improved Algorithm Based on EMD-Wavelet for ECG Signal De-noising
Nianqiang Li
the University of Jinan 250022 China
linianqiang@126.com
Abstract
In this paper we present an improved algorithm
based on EMD-Wavelet for ECG(electrocardiogram)
signal de-noising. This method has the advantages of
both EMD (Empirical Mode Decomposition) and
wavelet adaptive thresholding algorithm for the actual
gathering ECG signal de-noising. It utilizes the
adaptability of EMD to make up the indetermination
when choosing wavelet function, and then uses wavelet
adaptive thresholding to prevent the distortion of EMD
algorithm. We take MATLAB as simulation platform to
compare the three algorithms from simulation figure,
SNR and MSE. The results show that this improved
EMD-Wavelet algorithm is efficient and stable in ECG
signal de-noising.
Keywords-ECG signal; EMD-Wavelet; EMD;
wavelet adaptive threshold
1. Introduction
ECG (electrocardiogram) signals are important
physiological signals. Three types of predominant
noise that commonly contaminate the signal are
baseline wander noise, EMG (electromyographic)
interference and power line interference. For the actual
gathering ECG signal, the varied noises often overlay
the all frequency field of ECG. Such noises are
difficult to remove using typical filtering.
Effectiveness of any method strictly depends on stable
sinus rhythm[1].
It is not ideal with simply wavelet adaptive
threshold algorithm or EMD(Empirical Mode
Decomposition) (E. Huang, et al 1998) algorithm as
ECG signals are relatively weak and have strong
background noise. In addition, accordance with
wavelet adaptive threshold characteristics and noise
features which are distributed in various IMF(Intrinsic
Mode Function) components after decomposition, if
we process all IMF components with corresponding
wavelet (Grossman and Morlet, 1984) adaptive
threshold de-noising, the effect may be better than
merely using single algorithms[2].
In this paper, Based on EMD and the wavelet de-
noising methods, an improved algorithm based on
EMD-Wavelet algorithm is presented here. We take
978-0-7695-3605-7/09 $25.00 2009 IEEE
DOI 10.1109/CSO.2009.178
Ping Li
the University of JI Nan 250022 China
dianmang@126.com
MATLAB as simulation platform to compare the three
algorithms from simulation figure, SNR(signal to noise
ratio) and MSE(mean square error) with actual
gathering ECG signals. We also describe this novel
algorithm that we have developed for ECG de-noising.
The subsequent parts introduced applications of
EMD and wavelet adaptive thresholding algorithm
used in this improved EMD-Wavelet algorithm. We
use actual ECG signal data gathered from signal
gathering system. The results show that this improved
EMD-Wavelet algorithm gives better performance than
other two algorithms.
2. EMD
EMD is an effective signal analysis technique
showing great performance for signal de-noising. EMD
techniques have already been successfully applied to
such problems as ECG de-noising. It provides an
adaptive representation of non-linear signals, which
ensure the non-linear signal can be converted into an
IMF more easily than wavelet analysis[3].
Given a signal x (t ) , the effective EMD algorithm
can be summarized as follows:
Firstly identify all extrema of signal hik (n)
( k = 1, 2,..., K k = 1, 2,..., K k = 1, 2,..., K
k = 1, 2,..., K and i = 1, 2,..., n ) to be decomposed
and interpolate between minima, ending up with some
envelope ui ( n) . Then interpolate between maxima,
ending up with some envelope d i (n) , calculate the
mean mi (n) with equation (1):
mi ( n ) = [ui (n ) + d i ( n)] / 2 (1)
And extract the detail with equation (2):
hik+1 (n) = hik (n) mi (n) (2)
Lastly, check whether hik+1 (n) is IMF component
or not using equation (3):
h k (n ) h k (n) 2
N
(3)
i
i +1
e sd =
( h ik ( n )) 2
i=0
825
 Where N is the length of the decomposed signal. If k

esd <0.2, k
h ( n) is the IMF component. x ( n ) = Ck ( n ) + r ( n ) (7)
i +1
k =1
k
Let Ck ( n) = hi +1 ( n) , end up solution process of k th Ck (n) is the k th IMF component, k is
Where
IMF component. And iterate on the residual signal decomposition number, r ( n) is the residual signal.
with the equation (4):
Then we use wavelet adaptive thresholding algo-
h1k +1 ( n) = h1k ( n) Ck ( n) (4)
rithm to remove noise in Ck ( n) obtained by EMD
k +1
If h1 (n) is constant or monotone function, end up algorithm in the frontal analysis. We choose one of
and let r ( n) = h
k +1
( n) . threshold value function for the de-noising
1
computation with the adaptive threshold estimated
Although EMD de-noising algorithm can simply value of each IMF component to obtain each new IMF
remove one or more components for ECG de-noising,
component[6]. Thresholding are obtained by
it also removes useful corresponding signal compo-
nents and leads to serious signal distortion. equation (8) as shown below which are calculated with
process in the frontal chapter:
3. Wavelet adaptive thresholding 1 N 1
=2 (d i di ) 2
N i =0
(8)

Wavelet adaptive thresholding algorithm is a techn- Lastly, complete signal reconstruction with new
ique used to remove random noise and outliers from IMF components (see equation 9):
the signal before reconstruction [4-5]. Here, we utilize n
(9)
an adaptive soft thresholding strategy, as shown in
x ' (t ) = c ' (t ) + r ' (t )
i =1
i n

equation ( 5): x ' (t )

Where is the de-noised signal, and
di , di ' '
(5) c (t )(i = 1, 2,..., n) and r (t ) are de-noised IMF
= 0, di i n

d + ,
i d i
Where is the indicator value,
thresholding, and i is wavelet coefficients.
The choice of a thresholding value is a
fundamental issue, once the thresholded factorization
f must stay close to f . The error between f and
its thresholded approximation f is given by:
1 N 1
f i fi
R( f , f ) =
N i =0
(6)
2
Although wavelet transforms are suitable for noise
reduction, its pre-divided frequency feature limits its
ability to decompose the signal into different
frequencies according to the inherent characteristics of
ECG signals.
4. Improved EMD-Wavelet
Because the ECG energy mainly concentrates in the
0~100Hz scope, the smaller Sd (standard deviation)
value is, the better linearity and the stability of the
basic modality function are, the more basic modality
functions can decompose, we takes Sd=0.2 here. After
decompose ECG signal x (t ) using EMD algorithm
we can express it as shown in equation (7):
components.
In order to effectively enhance the frequency band
is the selectivity of different channels and reduce signal
cross-talk in different frequencies, we choose the
sym(N) wavelet as the mother wavelet after many
experiments. On the other hand, according to the order
of decomposition, the frequencies of IMF components
show a descending trend. With the serial number N
reduced, time domain performance of the sym(N)
wavelet gets worse and frequency domain performance
2
gets better. With N increased, the effects are contrary.
We hope there is a good resolution in frequency
domain. Therefore we choose wavelet function whose
N is bigger.
In addition, we restrict the decomposition number
with three IMF components and a remaining signal to
reduce calculation time and ensure EMD effects.
5. Result of simulation
In this section, we compared the three algorithms
from simulation figure, SNR and MSE with MAT-
LAB7.0 as simulation platform.
First we compare the performance of three
algorithms in ECG de-noising with sym7 as wavelet
function as shown in Figure 1. ECG signal data was
gathered from signal gathering system and the

826
simulation was carried out in MATLAB 7.0 algorithm is the smallest, wavelet adaptive
environment. thresholding algorithm takes second place and EMD
algorithm is the worst. MSE reflects the similarity of
pre and post de-noising signals. From the data we can
see that the similarity of both wavelet adaptive
thresholding and improved EMD-wavelet algorithm
are well.
Table 2 SNR comparison data of three algorithms
W avel et
Dat a EMD Adapt i ve EMD- wavel et
t hr eshol di ng
1 0. 1079 0. 0126 0. 0132
2 0. 1069 0. 0126 0. 0126
Figure 1. The performance of three algorithms 3 0. 1077 0. 0128 0. 0126
Fig1 shows that the signal with wavelet-EMD de- 0. 1101
4 0. 0126 0. 0125
noising algorithm is smoother than signal with merely
5 0. 1085 0. 0157 0. 0155
EMD or wavelet adaptive thresholding algorithm. This
6 0. 1055 0. 0122 0. 0119
de-noising algorithm also improved the edge problem
of EMD de-noising algorithm with small distortion.
Then, we take SNR and MSE (see equation (10) 6. Discussion
and equation (11)) as measurement index for a further
comparison of effects. Whether de-noising effect is In this paper, we proved the superiority of the imp-
good or not, its measure standard is that the bigger roved EMD-wavelet algorithm for the actual gathering
SNR is, the smaller the MSE is. ECG signal de-noising combining with EMD and
wavelet adaptive thresholding algorithms and provided
N
y2
( ( xi iyi )2 )
SNR = 10*log10 i =1 (10) a new means for ECG signal de-noising.
1 N
There are still some disadvantages in this algorithm.
MSE =
N
(x y )
i =1
i i
2 (11)
For example, during process of the signal border in
ECG algorithm, it may appear divergence phenomenon
x
Where i is the original signal and i is the de-
y and it is hard to avoid. Our work need to be perfected
noised signal. The SNR comparison data is shown in and further optimized.
Table 1.
Table 1. SNR comparison data of three algorithms
References
W avel et
Dat a EMD Adapt i ve EMD- wavel et [1] Piotr Augustyniak "Time-frequency modelling and dis-
t hr eshol di ng crimination of noise in the electrocardiogram" Physiol. Meas.
1 87. 3842 78. 8829 82. 2937 24(3), 2003, pp. 753-767
2 88. 3813 82. 5637 86. 3011 [2] D.L.Donoho, Denoising by soft thresholding. IEEE
3 87. 8577 80. 0125 82. 5862 Transactions on Information Theory,1995,41(3):617-627.
4 84. 5721
[3] E.Huang,et al. The empirical mode decomposition and
87. 9964 81. 3625
the Hilbert spectrum for nonstasionary time series analysis
5 85. 6628 77. 2689 81. 6593
[J]. Proc.R.Lond.A,1998, 454:903-905.
6 84. 9562 75. 2665 79. 6128 [4] D. L. Donoho, De-noising by soft thresholding, IEEE
Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 613
Table1 appears that SNR of EMD algorithm is the 627, 1995.
largest, EMD-wavelet algorithm takes second place [5] F. Abramovich, T. Sepatinas and B. Silverman, Wavelet
and wavelet adaptive thresholding algorithm is the thresholding via a Bayesian approach. Journal of the Royal
least. However, combining with Fig 1 we can see that Statistical Society B,1998,60(4):725-749.
the effect of EMD is the worst. Why its SNR is the [6] M. Jansen, Noise reduction by wavelet thresholding (New
largest just proved this result. From TABLE I we can York, Springer Verlag, 2000).
[7] H.Y.Gao and A.G. Bruce, Waveshrink with firm
draw a conclusion that the effect of EMD-wavelet
shrinkage, Statistica Sinica, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 855874,
algorithm is the best. 1997.
The SNR comparison data of three algorithms is
showed in Table 2.
Table 2 appears that according to a same wavelet
function, the MSE of improved EMD-wavelet

827