Automatic recognition of radar signals based on time-frequency image shape character

Radar signal recognition is one of the key technologies of modern electronic surveillance systems. Time-frequency image provides a new way for recognizing the radar signal. In this paper, a series of image processing methods containing image enhancement, image threshold binarization and mathematical morphology is utilized to extract the shape character of smoothed pseudo wigner-ville time-frequency distribution of radar signal. And then the identification of radar signal is realized by the character. Simulation results of eight kinds of typical radar signal demonstrate that when signal noise ratio (SNR) is greater than -3 dB, the Legendre moments shape character of the time-frequency image is very stable. Moreover, the recognition rate by the character is more than 90 per cent except for the FRANK code signal when SNR > -3 dB. Test also show that the proposed method can effectively recognize radar signal with less character dimension through compared with exitsing algorithms.Defence Science Journal, 2013, 63(3), pp.308-314, DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.14429/dsj.63.240

Applications of pattern classification to time-domain signals

Many different kinds of physics are used in sensors that produce time-domain signals, such as ultrasonics, acoustics, seismology, and electromagnetics. The waveforms generated by these sensors are used to measure events or detect flaws in applications ranging from industrial to medical and defense-related domains. Interpreting the signals is challenging because of the complicated physics of the interaction of the fields with the materials and structures under study. often the method of interpreting the signal varies by the application, but automatic detection of events in signals is always useful in order to attain results quickly with less human error. One method of automatic interpretation of data is pattern classification, which is a statistical method that assigns predicted labels to raw data associated with known categories. In this work, we use pattern classification techniques to aid automatic detection of events in signals using features extracted by a particular application of the wavelet transform, the Dynamic Wavelet Fingerprint (DWFP), as well as features selected through physical interpretation of the individual applications. The wavelet feature extraction method is general for any time-domain signal, and the classification results can be improved by features drawn for the particular domain. The success of this technique is demonstrated through four applications: the development of an ultrasonographic periodontal probe, the identification of flaw type in Lamb wave tomographic scans of an aluminum pipe, prediction of roof falls in a limestone mine, and automatic identification of individual Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) tags regardless of its programmed code. The method has been shown to achieve high accuracy, sometimes as high as 98%

Retainer-Free Optopalatographic Device Design and Evaluation as a Feedback Tool in Post-Stroke Speech and Swallowing Therapy

Stroke is one of the leading causes of long-term motor disability, including oro-facial impairments which affect speech and swallowing. Over the last decades, rehabilitation programs have evolved from utilizing mainly compensatory measures to focusing on recovering lost function. In the continuing effort to improve recovery, the concept of biofeedback has increasingly been leveraged to enhance self-efficacy, motivation and engagement during training. Although both speech and swallowing disturbances resulting from oro-facial impairments are frequent sequelae of stroke, efforts to develop sensing technologies that provide comprehensive and quantitative feedback on articulator kinematics and kinetics, especially those of the tongue, and specifically during post-stroke speech and swallowing therapy have been sparse. To that end, such a sensing device needs to accurately capture intraoral tongue motion and contact with the hard palate, which can then be translated into an appropriate form of feedback, without affecting tongue motion itself and while still being light-weight and portable. This dissertation proposes the use of an intraoral sensing principle known as optopalatography to provide such feedback while also exploring the design of optopalatographic devices itself for use in dysphagia and dysarthria therapy. Additionally, it presents an alternative means of holding the device in place inside the oral cavity with a newly developed palatal adhesive instead of relying on dental retainers, which previously limited device usage to a single person. The evaluation was performed on the task of automatically classifying different functional tongue exercises from one another with application in dysphagia therapy, whereas a phoneme recognition task was conducted with application in dysarthria therapy. Results on the palatal adhesive suggest that it is indeed a valid alternative to dental retainers when device residence time inside the oral cavity is limited to several tens of minutes per session, which is the case for dysphagia and dysarthria therapy. Functional tongue exercises were classified with approximately 61 % accuracy across subjects, whereas for the phoneme recognition task, tense vowels had the highest recognition rate, followed by lax vowels and consonants. In summary, retainer-free optopalatography has the potential to become a viable method for providing real-time feedback on tongue movements inside the oral cavity, but still requires further improvements as outlined in the remarks on future development.:1 Introduction 1.1 Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.2 Problem statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.3 Goals and contributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.4 Scope and limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2 Basics of post-stroke speech and swallowing therapy 2.1 Dysarthria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.2 Dysphagia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 2.3 Treatment rationale and potential of biofeedback . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 2.4 Summary and conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 3 Tongue motion sensing 3.1 Contact-based methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 3.1.1 Electropalatography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 3.1.2 Manometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 3.1.3 Capacitive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 3.2 Non-contact based methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 3.2.1 Electromagnetic articulography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 3.2.2 Permanent magnetic articulography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 3.2.3 Optopalatography (related work) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 3.3 Electro-optical stomatography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 3.4 Extraoral sensing techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 3.5 Summary, comparison and conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 4 Fundamentals of optopalatography 4.1 Important radiometric quantities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 4.1.1 Solid angle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 4.1.2 Radiant flux and radiant intensity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 4.1.3 Irradiance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 4.1.4 Radiance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 4.2 Sensing principle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 4.2.1 Analytical models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 4.2.2 Monte Carlo ray tracing methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 4.2.3 Data-driven models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 4.2.4 Model comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 4.3 A priori device design consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 4.3.1 Optoelectronic components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 4.3.2 Additional electrical components and requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 4.3.3 Intraoral sensor layout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 5 Intraoral device anchorage 5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 5.1.1 Mucoadhesion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 5.1.2 Considerations for the palatal adhesive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 5.2 Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 5.2.1 Polymer selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 5.2.2 Fabrication method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 5.2.3 Formulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 5.2.4 PEO tablets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 5.2.5 Connection to the intraoral sensor’s encapsulation . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 5.2.6 Formulation evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 5.3 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 5.3.1 Initial formulation evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 5.3.2 Final OPG adhesive formulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 5.4 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 6 Initial device design with application in dysphagia therapy 6.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 6.2 Optode and optical sensor selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 6.2.1 Optode and optical sensor evaluation procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 6.2.2 Selected optical sensor characterization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 6.2.3 Mapping from counts to millimeter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 6.2.4 Results and discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 6.3 Device design and hardware implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 6.3.1 Block diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 6.3.2 Optode placement and circuit board dimensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 6.3.3 Firmware description and measurement cycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 6.3.4 Encapsulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 6.3.5 Fully assembled OPG device . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 6.4 Evaluation on the gesture recognition task . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 6.4.1 Exercise selection, setup and recording . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 6.4.2 Data corpus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 6.4.3 Sequence pre-processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 6.4.4 Choice of classifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 6.4.5 Training and evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 6.4.6 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 6.5 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 7 Improved device design with application in dysarthria therapy 7.1 Device design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 7.1.1 Design considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 7.1.2 General system overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 7.1.3 Intraoral sensor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 7.1.4 Receiver and controller . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 7.1.5 Multiplexer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 7.2 Hardware implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 7.2.1 Optode placement and circuit board layout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 7.2.2 Encapsulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 7.3 Device characterization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 7.3.1 Photodiode transient response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 7.3.2 Current source and rise time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 7.3.3 Multiplexer switching speed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 7.3.4 Measurement cycle and firmware implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 7.3.5 In vitro measurement accuracy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 7.3.6 Optode measurement stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 7.4 Evaluation on the phoneme recognition task . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 7.4.1 Corpus selection and recording setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 7.4.2 Annotation and sensor data post-processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 7.4.3 Mapping from counts to millimeter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 7.4.4 Classifier and feature selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 7.4.5 Evaluation paradigms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 7.5 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 7.5.1 Tongue distance curve prediction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 7.5.2 Tongue contact patterns and contours . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 7.5.3 Phoneme recognition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 7.6 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 8 Conclusion and future work 115 9 Appendix 9.1 Analytical light transport models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 9.2 Meshed Monte Carlo method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 9.3 Laser safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 9.4 Current source modulation voltage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 9.5 Transimpedance amplifier’s frequency responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 9.6 Initial OPG device’s PCB layout and circuit diagrams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 9.7 Improved OPG device’s PCB layout and circuit diagrams . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 9.8 Test station layout drawing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138 Bibliography 152Der Schlaganfall ist eine der häufigsten Ursachen für motorische Langzeitbehinderungen, einschließlich solcher im Mund- und Gesichtsbereich, deren Folgen u.a. Sprech- und Schluckprobleme beinhalten, welche sich in den beiden Symptomen Dysarthrie und Dysphagie äußern. In den letzten Jahrzehnten haben sich Rehabilitationsprogramme für die Behandlung von motorisch ausgeprägten Schlaganfallsymptomatiken substantiell weiterentwickelt. So liegt nicht mehr die reine Kompensation von verlorengegangener motorischer Funktionalität im Vordergrund, sondern deren aktive Wiederherstellung. Dabei hat u.a. die Verwendung von sogenanntem Biofeedback vermehrt Einzug in die Therapie erhalten, um Motivation, Engagement und Selbstwahrnehmung von ansonsten unbewussten Bewegungsabläufen seitens der Patienten zu fördern. Obwohl jedoch Sprech- und Schluckstörungen eine der häufigsten Folgen eines Schlaganfalls darstellen, wird diese Tatsache nicht von der aktuellen Entwicklung neuer Geräte und Messmethoden für quantitatives und umfassendes Biofeedback reflektiert, insbesondere nicht für die explizite Erfassung intraoraler Zungenkinematik und -kinetik und für den Anwendungsfall in der Schlaganfalltherapie. Ein möglicher Grund dafür liegt in den sehr strikten Anforderungen an ein solche Messmethode: Sie muss neben Portabilität idealerweise sowohl den Kontakt zwischen der Zunge und dem Gaumen, als auch die dreidimensionale Bewegung der Zunge in der Mundhöhle erfassen, ohne dabei die Artikulation selbst zu beeinflussen. Um diesen Anforderungen gerecht zu werden, wird in dieser Dissertation das Messprinzip der Optopalatographie untersucht, mit dem Schwerpunkt auf der Anwendung in der Dysarthrie- und Dysphagietherapie. Dies beinhaltet auch die Entwicklung eines entsprechenden Gerätes sowie dessen Befestigungsmethode in der Mundhöhle über ein dediziertes Mundschleimhautadhäsiv. Letzteres umgeht das bisherige Problem der notwendigen Anpassung eines solchen intraoralen Gerätes an einen einzelnen Nutzer. Für die Anwendung in der Dysphagietherapie erfolgte die Evaluation anhand einer automatischen Erkennung von Mobilisationsübungen der Zunge, welche routinemäßig in der funktionalen Dysphagietherapie durchgeführt werden. Für die Anwendung in der Dysarthrietherapie wurde eine Lauterkennung durchgeführt. Die Resultate bezüglich der Verwendung des Mundschleimhautadhäsives suggerieren, dass dieses tatsächlich eine valide Alternative zu den bisher verwendeten Techniken zur Befestigung intraoraler Geräte in der Mundhöhle darstellt. Zungenmobilisationsübungen wurden über Probanden hinweg mit einer Rate von 61 % erkannt, wogegen in der Lauterkennung Langvokale die höchste Erkennungsrate erzielten, gefolgt von Kurzvokalen und Konsonanten. Zusammenfassend lässt sich konstatieren, dass das Prinzip der Optopalatographie eine ernstzunehmende Option für die intraorale Erfassung von Zungenbewegungen darstellt, wobei weitere Entwicklungsschritte notwendig sind, welche im Ausblick zusammengefasst sind.:1 Introduction 1.1 Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.2 Problem statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.3 Goals and contributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.4 Scope and limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2 Basics of post-stroke speech and swallowing therapy 2.1 Dysarthria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.2 Dysphagia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 2.3 Treatment rationale and potential of biofeedback . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 2.4 Summary and conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 3 Tongue motion sensing 3.1 Contact-based methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 3.1.1 Electropalatography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 3.1.2 Manometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 3.1.3 Capacitive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 3.2 Non-contact based methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 3.2.1 Electromagnetic articulography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 3.2.2 Permanent magnetic articulography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 3.2.3 Optopalatography (related work) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 3.3 Electro-optical stomatography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 3.4 Extraoral sensing techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 3.5 Summary, comparison and conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 4 Fundamentals of optopalatography 4.1 Important radiometric quantities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 4.1.1 Solid angle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 4.1.2 Radiant flux and radiant intensity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 4.1.3 Irradiance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 4.1.4 Radiance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 4.2 Sensing principle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 4.2.1 Analytical models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 4.2.2 Monte Carlo ray tracing methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 4.2.3 Data-driven models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 4.2.4 Model comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 4.3 A priori device design consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 4.3.1 Optoelectronic components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 4.3.2 Additional electrical components and requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 4.3.3 Intraoral sensor layout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 5 Intraoral device anchorage 5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 5.1.1 Mucoadhesion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 5.1.2 Considerations for the palatal adhesive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 5.2 Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 5.2.1 Polymer selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 5.2.2 Fabrication method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 5.2.3 Formulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 5.2.4 PEO tablets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 5.2.5 Connection to the intraoral sensor’s encapsulation . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 5.2.6 Formulation evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 5.3 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 5.3.1 Initial formulation evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 5.3.2 Final OPG adhesive formulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 5.4 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 6 Initial device design with application in dysphagia therapy 6.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 6.2 Optode and optical sensor selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 6.2.1 Optode and optical sensor evaluation procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 6.2.2 Selected optical sensor characterization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 6.2.3 Mapping from counts to millimeter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 6.2.4 Results and discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 6.3 Device design and hardware implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 6.3.1 Block diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 6.3.2 Optode placement and circuit board dimensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 6.3.3 Firmware description and measurement cycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 6.3.4 Encapsulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 6.3.5 Fully assembled OPG device . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 6.4 Evaluation on the gesture recognition task . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 6.4.1 Exercise selection, setup and recording . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 6.4.2 Data corpus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 6.4.3 Sequence pre-processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 6.4.4 Choice of classifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 6.4.5 Training and evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 6.4.6 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 6.5 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 7 Improved device design with application in dysarthria therapy 7.1 Device design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 7.1.1 Design considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 7.1.2 General system overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 7.1.3 Intraoral sensor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 7.1.4 Receiver and controller . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 7.1.5 Multiplexer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 7.2 Hardware implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Novel Techniques for Processing Data with an FMCW radar

This dissertation examines and analyzes novel techniques that are useful in the collection and processing of data from a Frequency Modulated Continuous Wave Radar. The major topics discussed in this work are: reduction of amplitude modulation, signature collection without an anechoic chamber, transforming a signature into a matched filter, accounting for electromagnetic interference, accounting for digital noise, and the application of a Support Vector Machine to achieve classification. In addition, this work also provides a broad overview of a framework specifically developed to improve detection and classification without requiring expensive hardware modification. The four main categories analyzed in this work are distortion, spectral signature, optimal detection, and classification. Some notable contributions in this work include the assessment of a novel technique’s effectiveness to improve model accuracy by accounting for amplitude modulation in an FMCW radar, as well as discussion of improved techniques to perform signature collection with an FMCW radar in the absence of an anechoic chamber. The signature collection technique is a novel approach that utilizes physics and wavelets in an effort to improve Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR). This work also considers a novel technique to convert an FMCW target signature into coefficients for a matched filter, thus allowing for the full mathematical application of the optimal matched filter. In addition, this work provides an analysis of the improved performance of an FMCW radar through the development and use of a novel technique to account for both electromagnetic interference and digital noise. Finally the initial discovery, development, and refinement of an innovative application using SVM to classify the matched filter results of FMCW radar targets is given, thus resulting in previously uncollected and undocumented viable baseline data

Novel Techniques for Processing Data with an FMCW radar

This dissertation examines and analyzes novel techniques that are useful in the collection and processing of data from a Frequency Modulated Continuous Wave Radar. The major topics discussed in this work are: reduction of amplitude modulation, signature collection without an anechoic chamber, transforming a signature into a matched filter, accounting for electromagnetic interference, accounting for digital noise, and the application of a Support Vector Machine to achieve classification. In addition, this work also provides a broad overview of a framework specifically developed to improve detection and classification without requiring expensive hardware modification. The four main categories analyzed in this work are distortion, spectral signature, optimal detection, and classification. Some notable contributions in this work include the assessment of a novel technique’s effectiveness to improve model accuracy by accounting for amplitude modulation in an FMCW radar, as well as discussion of improved techniques to perform signature collection with an FMCW radar in the absence of an anechoic chamber. The signature collection technique is a novel approach that utilizes physics and wavelets in an effort to improve Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR). This work also considers a novel technique to convert an FMCW target signature into coefficients for a matched filter, thus allowing for the full mathematical application of the optimal matched filter. In addition, this work provides an analysis of the improved performance of an FMCW radar through the development and use of a novel technique to account for both electromagnetic interference and digital noise. Finally the initial discovery, development, and refinement of an innovative application using SVM to classify the matched filter results of FMCW radar targets is given, thus resulting in previously uncollected and undocumented viable baseline data