Removing Drift from Carotid Arterial Pulse Waveforms: A Comparison of Motion Correction and High-Pass Filtering

Conference paper


Non-invasive methods for estimating carotid artery (CA) pressure waveforms have been recently developed as a tool to detect heart abnormalities. Among non-invasive techniques, camera-based methods have the advantage of being non-contact, which enables measurements without applying external pressures to the artery. Camera-based methods measure skin deformation waveforms caused by arterial blood flow, which are assumed to have a similar shape to the pressure waveforms. Video recordings of the subject’s neck are analysed to quantify skin deformations caused by the carotid pressure pulse. However, in practice, unrelated motion, such as the relative movements of the camera and the subject, or movements due to breathing, can confound the skin measurements. One of the primary effects of this error is seen in the form of signal drift, which can make it difficult to analyse the shape of the skin displacement waveform. In this paper, we have investigated and compared two methods for removing the signal drift. One is to correct for the motion in the captured videos of the neck, and the second method is to use a high-pass wavelet filter. The results showed that, although both methods could reduce the signal drift, they had dissimilar effects on the shape of the CA displacement waveforms. The high-pass wavelet filter seemed to preserve the original measured shape of the CA displacement waveforms better than the motion-correction method. However, in this study, it was not possible to quantify the performance since the true shape of the CA displacement waveforms was not known.


Carotid artery Pressure Motion artefacts Subpixel image registration 


  1. 1.
    Townsend N, Wilson L, Bhatnagar P, Wickramasinghe K, Rayner M, Nichols M (2016) Cardiovascular disease in Europe: Epidemiological update 2016. Eur Heart J 37:3232–3245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kasznicki J, Drzewoski J (2014) Heart failure in the diabetic population – pathophysiology, diagnosis and management. Arch Med Sci 3:546–556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    DeSilva, R (2013) Heart disease. Biographies of disease. Greenwood, Oxford. Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Maganti K, Rigolin VH, Sarano ME, Bonow RO (2010) Valvular heart disease: diagnosis and management. Mayo Clin Proc 85:483–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    O’Rourke MF, Pauca A, Jiang X-J (2001) Pulse wave analysis. Br J Clin Pharmacol 51:507–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Amelard R, Hughson RL, Greaves DK, Pfisterer KJ, Leung J, Clausi DA, Wong A (2017) Non-contact hemodynamic imaging reveals the jugular venous pulse waveform. Sci Rep 7:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Moco AV, Mondragon LZ, Wang W, Stuijk S, De Haan G (2017) Camera-based assessment of arterial stiffness and wave reflection parameters from neck micro-motion. Physiol Meas 38:1576–1598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    HajiRassouliha A, Lam Po Tang E, Nash MP, Taberner AJ, Nielsen PMF, Cakmak YO (2017) Quantifying carotid pulse waveforms using subpixel image registration. In: Computational biomechanics of medicine XII workshop, MICCAIGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    HajiRassouliha A, Taberner AJ, Nash MP, Nielsen PMF (2018) Subpixel phase-based image registration using Savitzky–Golay differentiators in gradient-correlation. Comput Vis Image Underst 170:28–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    HajiRassouliha A, Taberner AJ, Nash MP, Nielsen PMF (2016) Subpixel measurement of living skin deformation using intrinsic features. In: Proceedings of computational biomechanics of medicine XI workshop, MICCAIGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Daubechies I (1988) Orthonormal bases of compactly supported wavelets. Commun Pure Appl Math 41:909–996MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    HajiRassouliha A, Taberner AJ, Nash MP, Nielsen PMF (2017) Motion correction using subpixel image registration. In: Proceedings of international workshop on reconstruction and analysis of moving body organs, MICCAI, pp 14–23Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mallat SG (1989) A theory for multiresolution signal decomposition: the wavelet representation. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 11:674–693CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lei L, Wang C, Liu X (2013) Discrete wavelet transform decomposition level determination exploiting sparseness measurement. Int J Electr Comput Energy Electron Commun Eng 7:691–694Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    HajiRassouliha A, Amoon M, Doostmohammadi MH, Sadr A, Ayatollahi A, Rezairad GA (2008) Comparison of using different types of wavelet or FFT for de-nosing of body surface potential signals. In: 2008 third international conference on broadband communications, information technology & biomedical applications. IEEE, pp 233–238Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Subasi A (2007) EEG signal classification using wavelet feature extraction and a mixture of expert model. Expert Syst Appl 32:1084–1093CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Amin HU, Malik AS, Ahmad RF, Badruddin N, Kamel N, Hussain M, Chooi W-T (2015) Feature extraction and classification for EEG signals using wavelet transform and machine learning techniques. Australas Phys Eng Sci Med 38:139–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Auckland Bioengineering Institute (ABI), The University of AucklandAucklandNew Zealand
  2. 2.Auckland Bioengineering Institute, University of AucklandAucklandNew Zealand
  3. 3.Department of Engineering ScienceThe University of AucklandAucklandNew Zealand
  4. 4.Department of AnatomyUniversity of OtagoDunedinNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations