Journal of Applied Physiology Fuel your research with LabChart
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


J Appl Physiol 56: 1126-1134, 1984;
8750-7587/84 $5.00
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Bryant, H. J.
Right arrow Articles by Abbrecht, P. H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Bryant, H. J.
Right arrow Articles by Abbrecht, P. H.

Journal of Applied Physiology, Vol 56, Issue 4 1126-1134, Copyright © 1984 by American Physiological Society


ARTICLES

Computer processing of phrenic neurograms

H. J. Bryant and P. H. Abbrecht

Manual processing of large numbers of electrophysiological waveforms is a tedious process prone to subjective errors in judgment. To eliminate these problems, we developed computer algorithms and techniques to analyze cat phrenic neurograms produced in response to step changes in end-tidal PCO2. The computer analyzed the neurogram in terms of a model waveform, which consisted of 1) base-line activity made up primarily of noise, 2) an initial sharp increase from base line, 3) a slower ramplike increase in activity, 4) a peak value, and 5) a rapid decrease in activity back to base line. Parameters describing these model elements as well as inspiratory and expiratory times were calculated by the computer. Computer-produced parameters were compared with manually calculated parameters from chart recordings for over 200 individual neurograms. Repeated manual processing of the neurogram had a variability of +/- 10% in the parameter estimates. The computer-produced parameters fell within this range more than 89% of the time. Although the techniques described are directed specifically toward phrenic neurogram analysis, the methods are general enough to be useful in computer processing of other types of physiological waveforms.





HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Visit Other APS Journals Online