Band-pass spectral-temporal parameters of forced expiratory noises in bronchial obstruction. relation with whistling sounds

封面

如何引用文章

全文:

开放存取 开放存取
受限制的访问 ##reader.subscriptionAccessGranted##
受限制的访问 订阅存取

详细

A comparative study of band-pass spectral-temporal parameters of tracheal noises of forced expiratory (FE) and quantitative assessment of FE wheezes was conducted on an experimental sample including patients with bronchial obstruction (asthma and COPD, n = 36) and healthy asymptomatic individuals with normal lung function (n = 39). Digital processing of tracheal noise signals was performed in MATLAB automatically using a specially developed algorithm. The analyzed acoustic band-pass parameters are temporal and spectral characteristics in several (2 to 6) combined 200-Hz bands, divided into mid- (200–800 Hz) and high-frequency (800–2000 Hz) areas in the range of 200–2000 Hz, as well as their ratios. FE wheezes were recognized by an experienced operator on spectrograms in the SpectraPLUS audio editor. A significant predominance of the values of high-frequency band-pass energy parameters of tracheal noises and the ratio of energies and powers of the high-frequency and mid-frequency ranges was revealed in patients with obstructive pulmonary diseases compared to healthy controls. The number of whistling sounds was greater in patients and moderately correlated with the acoustic parameters. Redistribution of acoustic energy to the high-frequency region is probably associated with the pathophysiological basis of bronchial obstruction – narrowing of the conducting airways and an increase in airflow resistance.

全文:

受限制的访问

作者简介

I. Pochekutova

Il’ichev Pacific Oceanological Institute, Far Eastern Branch of RAS

编辑信件的主要联系方式.
Email: i-poch@poi.dvo.ru

Department of Acoustic Tomography

俄罗斯联邦, Vladivostok

M. Safronova

Il’ichev Pacific Oceanological Institute, Far Eastern Branch of RAS

Email: i-poch@poi.dvo.ru

Department of Acoustic Tomography

俄罗斯联邦, Vladivostok

参考

  1. Bousquet J., Khaltaev N. Global surveillance, prevention and control of Chronic Respiratory Diseases. A Comprehensive Approach. World Health Organization. Geneva, 2007. 146 p.
  2. Antonelli A., Pellegrino G., Papa G.F.S., Pellegrino R. Pitfalls in spirometry: Clinical relevance // World J. Respirol. 2014. V. 4. № 3. P. 19.
  3. Kim Y., Hyon Y.K., Lee S. et al. The coming era of a new auscultation system for analyzing respiratory sounds // BMC Pulm. Med. 2022. V. 22. № 1. P. 119.
  4. Pramono R.X.A., Bowyer S., Rodriguez-Villegas E. Automatic adventitious respiratory sound analysis: A systematic review // PLoS One. 2017. V. 12. № 5. P. 1.
  5. Ram A., Jindal G., Bagal U., Nagare G. Approaches for respiratory sound analysis in identification of respiratory diseases // Front. Biomed. Technol. 2024. V. 11. № 2. P. 286.
  6. Muthusamy P.D., Sundaraj K., Manap N.A. Computerized acoustical techniques for respiratory flow-sound analysis: a systematic review // Artif. Intell. Rev. 2020. V. 53. P. 3501.
  7. Rao A., Huynh E., Royston T. et al. Acoustic methods for pulmonary diagnosis // IEEE Rev. Biomed. Eng. 2019. V. 12. P. 221.
  8. Gavriely N., Cugell D.W. Breath sounds methodology. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 1995. 203 p.
  9. Korenbaum V.I., Pochekutova I.A., Kostiv A.E. et al. Human forced expiratory noise. Origin, apparatus and possible diagnostic applications // J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2020. V. 148. № 6. P. 3385.
  10. Forgacs P. The functional basis of pulmonary sounds // Chest. 1978. V. 73. № 3. P. 399.
  11. Brusasco V., Crapo R., Viegi G. ATS/ERS task force: Standartisation of lung function testing // Eur. Respir. J. 2005. V. 26. № 1–5. P. 319.
  12. Mussell M.J., Nakazono Y., Miyamoto Y. Effect of air flow and flow transducer on tracheal breath sounds // Med. Biol. Eng. Comput. 1990. V. 28. № 6. P. 550.
  13. Korenbaum V.I., Pochekutova I.A. [Acoustic-biomechanical relationships in the formation of forced expiratory noise in humans]. Vladivostok: Dalnauka, 2006. 148 p.
  14. Cegla U.H. Some aspects of pneumosonography // Prog. Resp. Res. 1979. V. 11. № 10. P. 235.
  15. Mead J., Turner J.M., Macklem P.T., Little J.B. Significance of the relationship between lung recoil and maximum expiratory flow // J. Appl. Physiol. 1967. V. 22. № 1. P. 95.
  16. Korenbaum V.I., Rasskazova M.A., Pochekutova I.A., Fershalov Y.Y. Mechanisms of sibilant noise formation observed during forced exhalation of a healthy person // Acoustical Physics. 2009. V. 55. № 4–5. P. 528.
  17. Olson D.E., Hammersley J.R. Mechanisms of lung sound generation // Semin. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 1985. V. 6. № 3. P. 171.
  18. Sohn K. Airflow velocities in the airways during expiration on different end-expiratory lung volumes: Computational study / Proceedings of the 28th IEEE EMBS Annual International Conference. New York City (USA), 2006. P. 5599.
  19. Fiz J.A., Jane R., Homs A. et al. Detection of wheezing during maximal forced exhalation in patients with obstructed airways // Chest. 2002. V. 122. № 1. P. 186.
  20. Fiz J.A., Jané R., Izquierdo J. et al. Analysis of forced wheezes in asthma patients // Respiration. 2006. V. 73. № 1. P. 55.
  21. Schreur H.J.W., Diamant Z., Vanderschoot J. et al. Lung sounds during allergen-induced asthmatic responses in patients with asthma // Am. J. Respir. Crit Care Med. 1996. V. 153. № 5. P. 1474.
  22. Pasterkamp H., Consunji-Araneta R., Oh Y., Holbrow J. Chest surface mapping of lung sounds during methacholine challenge // Pediatr. Pulmonol. 1997. V. 23. № 1. P. 21.
  23. Pochekutova I.A., Korenbaum V.I. Forced expiratory tracheal noise time in young men in health and in bronchial obstruction // Human Physiology. 2014. V. 40. № 2. P. 201.
  24. Serrurier A., Neuschaefer-Rube C., Röhrig R. Past and trends in cough sound acquisition, automatic detection and automatic classification: A comparative review // Sensors (Basel). 2022. V. 22. № 8. P. 2896.
  25. Hegde S., Sreeram S., Alter I.L. et al. Rameau Cough sounds in screening and diagnostics: a scoping review // Laryngoscope. 2024. V. 134. № 3. P. 1023.
  26. Knocikova J., Korpas J., Vrabec M., Javorka M. Wavelet analysis of voluntary cough sound in patients with respiratory diseases // J. Physiol. Pharmacol. 2008. V. 59 (Suppl 6). P. 331.
  27. Hardin J.C., Patterson J.L. Monitoring the state of the human airways by analysis of respiratory sound // Acta Astronaut. 1979. V. 6. № 9. P. 1137.

补充文件

附件文件
动作
1. JATS XML
下载
2. Fig. 1. Determination of acoustic parameters of forced expiratory noise. A – determination of total duration Ta, T1 – start time and T2 – end time of noise; B – determination of band durations (ti) and energies (Ai) in corresponding bands (i = 1...9), S – threshold level.

下载 (244KB)
索引源数据
3. Fig. 2. Spectrograms of tracheal sounds of forced expiration (FE) of a healthy subject (A) and a patient with obstruction (B). f1 – “tracks” of mid-frequency (MF) whistles of FE (MFW) in the frequency band of 200–800 Hz (on spectrogram B, the MFW region is highlighted by a rectangle); f2 – “tracks” of high-frequency (HF) MFW (more than 800 Hz) in the first half of the maneuver; f3 – “tracks” of HF MFW (more than 800 Hz) in the second half of the maneuver; h2 – 2nd harmonic of whistle f2 in a healthy subject; h1 – 2nd harmonics of MFW (f1) in a patient, bp – broadband part.

下载 (229KB)
索引源数据
4. Fig. 3. Acoustic parameters of tracheal forced expiratory noises in groups. A – time parameters: (Ta) – total duration, (t) – band durations; B, C – (Ar) – specific band energies in the mid-frequency (MF) and high-frequency (HF) ranges; G – (Ar/tr) – specific average high-frequency (HF) band powers; D, E – band parameters L in the MF and HF ranges. Frequency range designations: MF1 – 200–800 Hz, MF2 – 400–800 Hz, HF3 – 800–2000 Hz, HF4 – 1000–2000 Hz, HF5 – 1200–2000 Hz, HF6 – 1400–2000 Hz. Significance levels of differences: * – p ≤ 0.05, ** – p ≤ 0.01, *** – p ≤ 0.001, **** – p ≤ 0.0001.

下载 (391KB)
索引源数据
5. Fig. 4. Relative band acoustic parameters in groups. A – (Arhf/Arsf) – ratios of specific band energies of high-frequency (HF) and mid-frequency (MF) ranges; B – ((Ar/tr)hf/(Ar/tr)sf) – ratios of average specific band powers of HF and MF ranges. Frequency range designations: MF1 – 200–800 Hz, MF2 – 400–800 Hz, HF3 – 800–2000 Hz, HF4 – 1000–2000 Hz, HF5 – 1200–2000 Hz, HF6 – 1400-2000 Hz. Significance levels of differences: * – p ≤ 0.05, ** – p ≤ 0.01, *** – p ≤ 0.001, **** – p ≤ 0.0001.

下载 (362KB)
索引源数据
6. Fig. 5. Frequency of occurrence of whistles, their harmonics (A) and the total number of mid-frequency (MF) and high-frequency (HF) narrow-band components of tracheal noises (B) in groups.

下载 (164KB)
索引源数据

版权所有 © Russian Academy of Sciences, 2025