Recognizing Abnormal Heart Sounds Using Deep Learning

arXiv:1707.04642v2 [cs.SD] 19 Oct 2017

Jonathan Rubin1 , Rui Abreu2 , Anurag Ganguli2 , Saigopal Nelaturi2 , Ion Matei2 , Kumar Sricharan2
1
Philips Research North America, 2 PARC, A Xerox Company
jonathan.rubin@philips.com, rui@computer.org,
{anurag.ganguli, saigopal.nelaturi, ion.matei, sricharan.kumar}@parc.com

Abstract
The work presented here applies deep learning to
the task of automated cardiac auscultation, i.e. recognizing abnormalities in heart sounds. We describe an automated heart sound classification algorithm that combines the use of time-frequency
heat map representations with a deep convolutional
neural network (CNN). Given the cost-sensitive
nature of misclassification, our CNN architecture
is trained using a modified loss function that directly optimizes the trade-off between sensitivity
and specificity. We evaluated our algorithm at the
2016 PhysioNet Computing in Cardiology challenge where the objective was to accurately classify normal and abnormal heart sounds from single, short, potentially noisy recordings. Our entry to the challenge achieved a final specificity of
0.95, sensitivity of 0.73 and overall score of 0.84.
We achieved the greatest specificity score out of
all challenge entries and, using just a single CNN,
our algorithm differed in overall score by only 0.02
compared to the top place finisher, which used an
ensemble approach.

1

PhysioNet [Goldberger et al., 2000] has held a Computing in Cardiology Challenge since 2000 that requires participants to automatically analyze physiologic time series data.
The 2016 challenge [Clifford et al., 2016] asked participants
to perform automated analysis of phonocardiogram (PCG)
waveforms, i.e. heart sound data collected using digital
stethoscopes. The objective of the challenge was to accurately classify normal and abnormal heart sounds. Recordings were collected from both healthy individuals, as well as
those with heart disease, including heart valve disease and
coronary artery disease. A PCG plot showing the recording
of the (normal) sounds made by the heart is given in Figure 1.

Introduction

Advances in deep learning [LeCun et al., 2015] are being made at a rapid pace, in part due to challenges such
as ILSVRC – the ImageNet Large-Scale Visual Recognition
Challenge [Russakovsky et al., 2015]. Successive improvements in deep neural network architectures have resulted in
computer vision systems that are better able to recognize and
classify objects in images [Lin et al., 2013; Szegedy et al.,
2015] and winning ILSVRC entries [Szegedy et al., 2014;
He et al., 2015]. While a large focus of deep learning has
been on automated analysis of image and text data, advances
are also increasingly being seen in areas that require processing other input modalities. One such area is the medical domain where inputs into a deep learning system could be physiologic time series data. An increasing number of large scale
challenges in the medical domain, such as [Kaggle, 2014] and
[Kaggle, 2015] have also resulted in improvements to deep
learning architectures [Liang and Hu, 2015].

Figure 1: A phonocardiogram showing the recording of normal heart sounds, together with corresponding electrocardiogram tracing. S1 is the first heart sound and marks the beginning of systole. Source [Springer et al., 2016].
Heart disease remains the leading cause of death globally,
resulting in more people dying every year due to cardiovascular disease compared to any other cause of death [World
Health Organization, 2017]. Successful automated PCG analysis can serve as a useful diagnostic tool to help determine
whether an individual should be referred on for expert diagnosis, particularly in areas where access to clinicians and
medical care is limited.
In this work, we present an algorithm that accepts PCG
waveforms as input and uses a deep convolutional neural network architecture to classify inputs as either normal or abnor-

mal using the following steps:
1. Segmentation of time series A logistic regression hidden
semi-Markov model is used to segment incoming heart
sound instances into shorter segments beginning at the
start of each heartbeat, i.e. the S1 heart sound.
2. Transformation of segments into heat maps Using
Mel-frequency cepstral coefficients, one dimensional
time series input segments are converted into twodimensional spectrograms (heat maps) that capture the
time-frequency distribution of signal energy.
3. Classification of heat maps using a deep neural network
A convolutional neural network is trained to perform
automatic feature extraction and distinguish between
normal and abnormal heat maps.
The contributions of this work are as follows:
1. We introduce a deep convolutional neural network architecture designed to automatically analyze physiologic
time series data for the purposes of identifying abnormalities in heart sounds.
2. Given the cost-sensitive nature of misclassification, we
describe a novel loss function used to train the above
network that directly optimizes the sensitivity and specificity trade-off.
3. We present results from the 2016 PhysioNet Computing
in Cardiology Challenge where we evaluated our algorithm and achieved a Top 10 place finish out of 48 teams
who submitted a total of 348 entries.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. In
Section 2, we discuss related works, including historical approaches to automated heart sound analysis and deep learning
approaches that process physiologic time series input data.
Section 3 introduces our approach and details each step of
the algorithm. Section 4 further describes the modified costsensitive loss function used to trade-off the sensitivity and
specificity of the network’s predictions, followed by Section
5, which details the network training decisions and parameters. Section 6 presents results from the 2016 PhysioNet
Computing in Cardiology Challenge and in Section 7 we provide a final discussion and end with conclusions in Section
8.

2

Related Work

Before the 2016 PhysioNet Computing in Cardiology Challenge there were no existing approaches (to the authors’
knowledge) that applied the tools and techniques of “deep
learning” to the automated analysis of heart sounds [Liu et
al., 2016]. Previous approaches relied upon a combination of
feature extraction routines input into classic supervised machine learning classifiers. Features extracted from heart cycles in the time and frequency domains, as well as wavelet
features, time-frequency and complexity-based features were
input into artificial neural networks [De Vos and Blanckenberg, 2007; Uğuz, 2012a; Uğuz, 2012b; Sepehri et al., 2008;
Bhatikar et al., 2005] and support vector machines [Maglogiannis et al., 2009; Ari et al., 2010; Zheng et al., 2015]

for classification. Previous works have also employed Hidden Markov Models for both segmenting PCG signals into
the fundamental heart sounds [Springer et al., 2014; Springer
et al., 2016], as well as classifying normal and abnormal instances [Wang et al., 2007; Saraçoglu, 2012].
While there have been many previous efforts applied to automated heart sound analysis, gauging the success of historical approaches has been somewhat difficult, due to differences in dataset quality, number of recordings available for
training and testing algorithms, recorded signal lengths and
the environment in which data was collected (e.g. clinical vs.
non-clinical settings). Moreover, some existing works have
not performed appropriate train-test data splits and have reported results on training or validation data, which is highly
likely to produce optimistic results due to overfitting [Liu et
al., 2016]. In this work, we report results from the 2016 PhysioNet Computing in Cardiology Challenge, which evaluated
entries on a large hidden test-set that was not made publicly
available. To reduce overfitting, no recordings from the same
subject were included in both the training and the test set and
a variety of both clean and noisy PCG recordings, which exhibited very poor signal quality, were included to encourage
the development of accurate and robust algorithms.
The work presented in this paper, is one of the first attempts at applying deep learning to the task of heart sound
data analysis. However, there have been recent efforts to apply deep learning approaches to other types of physiological
time series analysis tasks. An early work that applied deep
learning to the domain of psychophysiology is described in
[Martı́nez et al., 2013]. They advocate the use of preference
deep learning for recognizing affect from physiological inputs such as skin conductance and blood volume pulse within
a game-based user study. The authors argue against the use
of manual ad-hoc feature extraction and selection in affective
modeling, as this limits the creativity of attribute design to the
researcher. One difference between the work of [Martı́nez et
al., 2013] and ours is that they perform an initial unsupervised pre-training step using stacked convolutional denoising
auto-encoders, whereas our network does not require this step
and is instead trained in a supervised fashion end-to-end.
Similar deep learning efforts that process physiologic time
series have also been applied to the problems of epileptic
seizure prediction [Mirowski et al., 2008] and human activity
recognition [Hammerla et al., 2016].

3

Approach

Recall from Section 1 that our approach consists of three general steps: segmentation, transformation and classification.
Each is described in detail below.

3.1

Segmentation of time series

The main goal of segmentation is to ensure that incoming
time series inputs are appropriately aligned before attempting
to perform classification. We first segment the incoming heart
sound instances into shorter segments and locate the beginning of each heartbeat, i.e. the S1 heart sound. A logistic regression hidden semi-Markov model [Springer et al., 2016] is
used to predict the most likely sequence of heart sound states

Figure 2: MFCC heat map visualization of a 3-second segment of heart sound data. Sliding windows, i, are represented on
the horizontal axis and filterbank frequencies, j, are stacked along the inverted y-axis. MFCC energy information, ci,j is
represented by pixel color in the spectrograms. Also shown are the original one-dimensional PCG waveforms that produced
each heat map.
(S1 → Systole → S2 → Diastole) by incorporating information about expected state durations.
Once the S1 heart sound has been identified, a time segment of length, T , is extracted. Segment extraction can either
be overlapping or non-overlapping. Our final model used a
segment length of, T = 3 seconds, and we chose to use overlapping segments as this led to performance improvements
during initial training and validation.

3.2

Transformation of segments into heat maps

Each segment is transformed from a one-dimensional time
series signal into a two-dimensional heat map that captures
the time-frequency distribution of signal energy. We chose
to use Mel Frequency Cepstral Coefficents [Davis and Mermelstein, 1980] to perform this transformation, as MFCCs
capture features from audio data that more closely resembles
how human beings perceive loudness and pitch. MFCCs are
commonly used as a feature type in automatic speech recognition [Godino-Llorente and Gomez-Vilda, 2004].
We apply the following steps to achieve the transformation:

log transformation as sound volume is not perceived on
a linear scale.
c∗i,j = log(

ci,j =

k

(1)

n=1

where k ∈ [1, K], K is the length of the DFT and h(n)
is a hamming window of length N . The power spectral
estimate for window, i, is then given by (2).
Pi (k) =

1
|Si (k)|2
N

(2)

3. Apply a filterbank of, j ∈ [1, J], triangular band-pass
filters, dj,1...K , to the power spectral estimates, Pi (k),
and sum the energies in each filter together. Include a

J
X
j=1

c∗i,j cos

h k(2i − 1)π i
,k = 1...J
2J

(4)

The result is a collection ofcepstral
coefficients, ci,j for

T
window, i. For i = 1 . . . ∆
, ci,j can be stacked together to give a time-frequency heat map that captures
changes in signal energy over heart sound segments.
Figure 2 illustrates two example heat maps (one derived
from a normal heart sound input and the other from an
abnormal input), where ci,j is the MFCC value (represented by color) at location, i, on the horizontal axis and,
j, on the (inverted) vertical axis.

3.3
si (n)h(n)ei2πn `ν

(3)

We used a filterbank consisting of J = 26 filters,
where frequency ranges were derived using the Mel
scale that maps actual measured frequencies, f , to values
that better match how humans perceive pitch, M (f ) =
f
1125 ln(1 + 700
).
4. Finally, apply a Discrete Cosine Transform to decorrelate the log filterbank energies, which are correlated due
to overlapping windows in the Mel filterbank.

2. Compute the Discrete Fourier transform for each window.

Si (k) =

dj,k Pi (k))

k=1

1. Given an input segment of length, T , and sampling rate,
ν, select a window length, `, and step size, ∆, and extract
overlapping sliding windows, si (n),
 from the input time
T
series segment, where i ∈ [1, ∆
] is the window index
and n ∈ [1, `ν] is the sample index. We chose a window
length of 0.025 seconds and a step size of 0.01 seconds.

`ν
X

K
X

Classification of heat maps using a deep neural
network

The result of transforming the original one-dimensional timeseries into a two-dimensional time-frequency representation
is that now each heart sound segment can be processed as an
image, where energy values over time can be visualized as a
heat map (see Figure 2). Convolutional neural networks are a
natural choice for training image classifiers, given their ability to automatically learn appropriate convolutional filters.
Therefore, we chose to train a convolutional neural network
architecture using heat maps as inputs.
Decisions about the number of filters to apply and their
sizes, as well as how many layers and their types to include
in the network were made by a combination of initial manual

Figure 3: Convolutional neural network architecture for predicting normal versus abnormal heart sounds using MFCC heat
maps as input
exploration by the authors, followed by employing a random
search over a limited range of network architecture parameters. Figure 3 depicts the network architecture of a convolutional neural network that accepts as input a single channel
6x300 MFCC heat map and outputs a binary classification,
predicting whether the input segment represents a normal or
abnormal heart sound.
The first convolutional layer learns 64 2x20 kernels, using
same-padding. This is followed by applying a 1x20 maxpooling filter, using a horizontal stride of 5, which has the
effect of reducing each of the 64 feature maps to a dimension
of 6x60. A second convolutional layer applies 64 2x10 kernels over the previous layer, once again using same padding.
This is again followed by a max-pooling operation using a filter size of 1x4 and a stride of 2, further reducing each feature
map to a dimension of 6x30. At this stage in the architecture a flattening operation is applied that unrolls each of the
64 6x30 feature maps into a single dimensional vector of size
11,520. This feature vector is fed into a first fully connected
layer consisting of 1024 hidden units, followed by a second
layer of 512 hidden units and finally a binary classification
output.

4

Sensitivity-Specificity Loss Trade-off

The loss function of the network was altered from a standard
softmax cross entropy loss function to instead directly tradeoff between sensitivity and specificity.
Given unnormalized log-probabilities, y = W x + b, from
a classifier consisting of weight matrix, W , and bias b. The
softmax function:

s(y (1) )
s(y (2) )
..
.




Y =


e
s(yi ) = P

eyj

(5)

j

gives probability predictions P (yi |x; W, b) for the class at index, i, for input x.
Consider,

y ∗(1)
y ∗(2)
..
.





 ∗ 
,Y = 



y ∗(n)

s(y (n) )







(j)

where s(yi ), refers to the ith entry of row j and Y ∗ is the
corresponding one hot encoded matrix of actual class labels.
For the binary class labels of normal (y0∗ ) and abnormal
∗
(y1 ), we define the mask matrices, YN n and YAa , where entries within each matrix are softmax prediction values extracted ∀s(y(j) )∈Y , as follows:

YN n

 (j)
∗(j)
s(y0 ), where y0 = 1 and




arg max {s(y (j) )} = arg max{y ∗(j) }
=




0,
otherwise

YAa

 (j)
∗(j)

s(y1 ), where y1 = 1 and


arg max {s(y (j) )} = arg max{y ∗(j) }
=




0,
otherwise

We then define softmax sensitivity, Se , and specificity, Sp ,
as follows:
Se =

yi



X Y (j)
Aa

,
∗(j)

j

YAa

Sp =

X Y (j)
Nn
∗(j)

j

(6)

YN n

The final loss function we wish to minimize is given in (7).
LSeSp = −(Se + Sp ) + λR(W )

(7)

where λR(W ) is a regularization parameter and routine, respectively.

Hyper-parameters
Learning rate
Beta
Dropout
Network parameters
Regularization Type
Batch Size
Weight Update

Value
0.00015822
0.000076253698849
0.85565561
Value
L2
256
Adam Optimization

Table 1: Listing of hyper-parameters and selected network
parameters. Hyper-parameters were learned over the network
architecture described in Section 3.3, using random search
over a restricted parameter space.

5

Network Training

L2 regularization was computed for each of the fully connected layers’ weight and bias matrices and applied to the loss
function. Dropout was applied within both fully connected
layers. Table 1 shows the values of hyper-parameters chosen by performing a random search through parameter space,
as well as a list of other network training choices, including
weight updates and use of regularization. Adam optimization
[Kingma and Ba, 2014] was used to perform weight updates.
Models were trained on a single NVIDIA GPU with between
4 – 6 GB of memory. A mini-batch size of 256 was selected
to satisfy the memory constraints of the GPU.

5.1

Given that each model was trained on 3-second MFCC heat
map segments, it was necessary to stitch together a collection
of predictions to classify a single full instance. The simple
strategy of averaging each class’s prediction probability was
employed and the class with the greatest probability was selected as the final prediction.

6

Equations (8) and (9) show the modified sensitivity and specificity scoring metrics that were used to assess the submitted entries to the 2016 PhysioNet Computing in Cardiology
Challenge [Clifford et al., 2016]. Uppercase symbols reflect
the true class label, which could either be (A)bnormal, or
(N )ormal. Lowercase symbols refer to a classifier’s predicted
output where, once again, a is abnormal, n is normal and q
is a prediction of unsure. A subscript of 1 (e.g. Aa1 , N a1 )
refers to heart sound instances that were considered good signal quality by the challenge organizers and a subscript of 2
(e.g. An2 , N n2 ) refers to heart sound instances that were
considered poor signal quality by challenge organizers. Finally, the weights used to calculate sensitivity, wa1 and wa2 ,
capture the percentages of good signal quality and poor signal
quality recordings in all abnormal recordings. Correspondingly for specificity, the weights wn1 and wn2 are the proportion of good signal quality and poor signal quality recordings
in all normal recordings. Overall, scores are given by Se+Sp
.
2

Training/Validation/Test Datasets

The overall dataset used within the PhysioNet Computing in
Cardiology Challenge was provided by the challenge organizers and consisted of eight heart sound databases collected
from seven countries over a period of more than a decade
[Clifford et al., 2016]. In total 4,430 recordings were taken
from 1,072 subjects, resulting in 30 hours of heart sound
recordings. From this total dataset, 1,277 heart sound recordings from 308 subjects were removed to be used as heldout test data for evaluating challenge submissions. The test
dataset was not made publicly available and challengers were
only allowed to make 15 submissions, in total, to the challenge server to evaluate their models on a small 20% subset
of the hidden dataset, before final results were computed. The
number of allowed submissions was limited to avoid the issue of participants implicitly overfitting their models on the
hidden test dataset.
From the 3153 publicly available PCG waveforms supplied
by the challenge organizers, the authors set aside a further
301 instances to be used as a local held-out test-set to gauge
model performance before making a submission to the challenge server. The remaining instances were used to train initial models. Models were trained on the overlapping 3-second
MFCC segments extracted from the remaining 2852 PCG
waveforms. This resulted in approximately 90,000 MFCC
heat maps, which were split into a training (∼ 75, 000 instances) and validation set (∼ 15, 000 instances). This training and validation set was unbalanced, consisting of approximately 80% normal segments and 20% abnormal segments.
Training was performed on the unbalanced dataset and no attempt was made to compensate for this class imbalance.

Results

Se =

Sp =

wa1 · Aa1
wa2 · (Aa2 + Aq2 )
+
,
Aa1 + Aq1 + An1
Aa2 + Aq2 + An2

(8)

wn1 · N n1
wn2 · (N n2 + N q2 )
+
N a1 + N q1 + N n1
N a2 + N q2 + N n2

(9)

Table 2 shows a selected subset of the results for the 2016
PhysioNet Computing in Cardiology Challenge. For each
selected entry, sensitivity, specificity and overall scores are
shown, as well as the entry’s final ranking and a brief description of its approach. In total, 348 entries were submitted by
48 teams. Our entry, as described by the algorithm presented
in this paper, was ranked 8th with a sensitivity of 0.7278 and
specificity of 0.9521, giving an overall score of 0.8399. The
top entry to the competition achieved sensitivity of 0.9424,
specificity of 0.7781 for an overall score of 0.8602. Also
included in Table 2 is the result of a benchmark entry that
was supplied by the challenge organizers, which ranked 43rd
overall, with a sensitivity of 0.6545 and specificity of 0.7569,
for an overall score of 0.7057.

7

Discussion

Table 2 shows that the overall scores for the top entries to
the PhysioNet Computing in Cardiology challenge were very
close. In particular, our entry, which achieved an 8th place
ranking, had a difference in score of only 0.02, compared
to the top place finisher. For our entry, the overall score
of 0.8399 was achieved using a single convolutional neural
network, whereas other top place finishers achieved strong
classification accuracies using an ensemble of classifiers. Improvements in performance have often been witnessed using

Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
43
48

Sensitivity
0.9424
0.8691
0.8743
0.8639
0.8848
0.8063
0.7696
0.7278
0.8691
0.7696
0.6545
0.8063

Specificity
0.7781
0.849
0.8297
0.8269
0.8048
0.8766
0.9125
0.9521
0.7873
0.8831
0.7569
0.2643

Overall
0.8602
0.859
0.852
0.8454
0.8448
0.8415
0.8411
0.8399
0.8282
0.8263
0.7057
0.5353

Description
AdaBoost & CNN
Ensemble of SVMs
Regularized Neural Networks
MFCCs, Wavelets, Tensors & kNN
Random Forest + LogitBoost
Unofficial entry
Probability-distribution based
Our Approach (see Section 3)
Approach Unknown
Approach Unknown
Provided Benchmark Entry
Approach Unknown

Table 2: Selected results from the 2016 PhysioNet Computing in Cardiology Challenge
an ensemble of networks or separate classifiers and we leave
this for future work/improvement. For practical purposes, a
diagnostic tool that relies on only a single network, as opposed to a large ensemble, has the advantage of limiting the
amount of computational resources required for classification. Deployment of such a diagnostic tool on platforms that
impose restricted computational budgets, e.g mobile-based,
could perhaps benefit from such a trade-off between accuracy
and computational cost.
Another point of interest is that our entry to the PhysioNet
Computing in Cardiology challenge achieved the greatest
specificity score (0.9521) out of all challenge entries. However, the network architecture produced a lower sensitivity
score (0.7278). Once again, considering the practical result
of deploying a diagnostic tool that relied upon our algorithm,
this would likely result in a system with few false positives,
but at the expense of misclassifying some abnormal instances.
Final decisions about the trade-off between sensitivity and
specificity would require further consideration of the exact
conditions and context of the deployment environment.
A final point of discussion and area of future improvement
is that the approach presented was limited to binary decision
outputs, i.e. either normal or abnormal heart sounds. An
architecture that also considered signal quality as an output
would likely result in performance improvement.

8

Conclusion

The work presented here is one of the first to apply deep
convolutional neural networks to the task of automated heart
sound classification for recognizing normal and abnormal
heart sounds. We have presented a novel algorithm that combines a CNN architecture with MFCC heat maps that capture
the time-frequency distribution of signal energy. The network
was trained to automatically distinguish between normal and
abnormal heat map inputs and it was designed to optimize
a loss function that directly considers the trade-off between
sensitivity and specificity. We evaluated the approach by
submitting our algorithm as an entry to the 2016 PhysioNet
Computing in Cardiology Challenge. The challenge required
the creation of accurate and robust algorithms that could deal
with heart sounds that exhibit very poor signal quality. Overall, our entry to the challenge achieved a Top-10 place finish

out of 48 teams who submitted 348 entries. Moreover, using just a single CNN, our algorithm differed by a score of at
most 0.02 compared to other top place finishers, all of which
used an ensemble approach of some kind.

References
[Ari et al., 2010] Samit Ari, Koushik Hembram, and
Goutam Saha. Detection of cardiac abnormality from pcg
signal using lms based least square svm classifier. Expert
Systems with Applications, 37(12):8019–8026, 2010.
[Bhatikar et al., 2005] Sanjay R Bhatikar, Curt DeGroff, and
Roop L Mahajan. A classifier based on the artificial neural network approach for cardiologic auscultation in pediatrics. Artificial intelligence in medicine, 33(3):251–260,
2005.
[Clifford et al., 2016] Gari D Clifford, CY Liu, Benjamin
Moody, David Springer, Ikaro Silva, Qiao Li, and Roger G
Mark. Classification of normal/abnormal heart sound
recordings: the physionet/computing in cardiology challenge 2016. Computing in Cardiology, pages 609–12,
2016.
[Davis and Mermelstein, 1980] Steven Davis and Paul Mermelstein. Comparison of parametric representations for
monosyllabic word recognition in continuously spoken
sentences. IEEE transactions on acoustics, speech, and
signal processing, 28(4):357–366, 1980.
[De Vos and Blanckenberg, 2007] Jacques P De Vos and
Mike M Blanckenberg. Automated pediatric cardiac auscultation. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering,
54(2):244–252, 2007.
[Godino-Llorente and Gomez-Vilda, 2004] Juan
Ignacio
Godino-Llorente and P Gomez-Vilda. Automatic detection of voice impairments by means of short-term cepstral
parameters and neural network based detectors. IEEE
Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, 51(2):380–384,
2004.
[Goldberger et al., 2000] A. L. Goldberger, L. A. N. Amaral, L. Glass, J. M. Hausdorff, P. Ch. Ivanov, R. G. Mark,
J. E. Mietus, G. B. Moody, C.-K. Peng, and H. E. Stanley.
PhysioBank, PhysioToolkit, and PhysioNet: Components

of a new research resource for complex physiologic signals. Circulation, 101(23):e215–e220, 2000.
[Hammerla et al., 2016] Nils Y. Hammerla, Shane Halloran,
and Thomas Plötz. Deep, convolutional, and recurrent
models for human activity recognition using wearables.
In Subbarao Kambhampati, editor, Proceedings of the
Twenty-Fifth International Joint Conference on Artificial
Intelligence, IJCAI 2016, New York, NY, USA, 9-15 July
2016, pages 1533–1540. IJCAI/AAAI Press, 2016.
[He et al., 2015] Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing
Ren, and Jian Sun. Deep residual learning for image recognition. CoRR, abs/1512.03385, 2015.
[Kaggle, 2014] Kaggle. American epilepsy society seizure
prediction challenge. https://www.kaggle.com/
c/seizure-prediction, 2014. [Online; accessed
22-December-2016].
[Kaggle, 2015] Kaggle.
Grasp-and-Lift EEG Detection.
https://www.kaggle.com/c/
grasp-and-lift-eeg-detection, 2015. [Online; accessed 22-December-2016].
[Kingma and Ba, 2014] Diederik P. Kingma and Jimmy Ba.
Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. CoRR,
abs/1412.6980, 2014.
[LeCun et al., 2015] Yann LeCun, Yoshua Bengio, and Geoffrey Hinton. Deep learning. Nature, 521(7553):436–
444, 2015.
[Liang and Hu, 2015] Ming Liang and Xiaolin Hu. Recurrent convolutional neural network for object recognition. In IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern
Recognition, CVPR 2015, Boston, MA, USA, June 7-12,
2015, pages 3367–3375. IEEE Computer Society, 2015.
[Lin et al., 2013] Min Lin, Qiang Chen, and Shuicheng Yan.
Network in network. CoRR, abs/1312.4400, 2013.
[Liu et al., 2016] Chengyu Liu, David Springer, Qiao Li,
Benjamin Moody, Ricardo Abad Juan, Francisco J Chorro,
Francisco Castells, José Millet Roig, Ikaro Silva, Alistair EW Johnson, et al. An open access database for the
evaluation of heart sound algorithms. Physiological Measurement, 37(12):2181, 2016.
[Maglogiannis et al., 2009] Ilias Maglogiannis, Euripidis
Loukis, Elias Zafiropoulos, and Antonis Stasis. Support
vectors machine-based identification of heart valve diseases using heart sounds. Computer methods and programs in biomedicine, 95(1):47–61, 2009.
[Martı́nez et al., 2013] Héctor Perez Martı́nez, Yoshua Bengio, and Georgios N. Yannakakis. Learning deep physiological models of affect. IEEE Comp. Int. Mag., 8(2):20–
33, 2013.
[Mirowski et al., 2008] Piotr W Mirowski, Yann LeCun,
Deepak Madhavan, and Ruben Kuzniecky. Comparing
svm and convolutional networks for epileptic seizure prediction from intracranial eeg. In 2008 IEEE Workshop on
Machine Learning for Signal Processing, pages 244–249.
IEEE, 2008.

[Russakovsky et al., 2015] Olga Russakovsky, Jia Deng,
Hao Su, Jonathan Krause, Sanjeev Satheesh, Sean Ma,
Zhiheng Huang, Andrej Karpathy, Aditya Khosla, Michael
Bernstein, Alexander C. Berg, and Li Fei-Fei. ImageNet Large Scale Visual Recognition Challenge. International Journal of Computer Vision (IJCV), 115(3):211–
252, 2015.
[Saraçoglu, 2012] Ridvan Saraçoglu. Hidden markov modelbased classification of heart valve disease with PCA for
dimension reduction. Eng. Appl. of AI, 25(7):1523–1528,
2012.
[Sepehri et al., 2008] Amir A Sepehri, Joel Hancq, Thierry
Dutoit, Arash Gharehbaghi, Armen Kocharian, and
A Kiani. Computerized screening of children congenital heart diseases. Computer methods and programs in
biomedicine, 92(2):186–192, 2008.
[Springer et al., 2014] David B Springer, Lionel Tarassenko,
and Gari D Clifford. Support vector machine hidden semimarkov model-based heart sound segmentation. In Computing in Cardiology 2014, pages 625–628. IEEE, 2014.
[Springer et al., 2016] David B Springer, Lionel Tarassenko,
and Gari D Clifford. Logistic regression-hsmm-based
heart sound segmentation. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, 63(4):822–832, 2016.
[Szegedy et al., 2014] Christian Szegedy, Wei Liu, Yangqing
Jia, Pierre Sermanet, Scott E. Reed, Dragomir Anguelov,
Dumitru Erhan, Vincent Vanhoucke, and Andrew Rabinovich. Going deeper with convolutions. CoRR,
abs/1409.4842, 2014.
[Szegedy et al., 2015] Christian Szegedy, Vincent Vanhoucke, Sergey Ioffe, Jonathon Shlens, and Zbigniew
Wojna. Rethinking the inception architecture for computer
vision. CoRR, abs/1512.00567, 2015.
[Uğuz, 2012a] Harun Uğuz. Adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system for diagnosis of the heart valve diseases using
wavelet transform with entropy. Neural Computing and
applications, 21(7):1617–1628, 2012.
[Uğuz, 2012b] Harun Uğuz. A biomedical system based on
artificial neural network and principal component analysis
for diagnosis of the heart valve diseases. Journal of medical systems, 36(1):61–72, 2012.
[Wang et al., 2007] Ping Wang, Chu Sing Lim, Sunita
Chauhan, Jong Yong A Foo, and Venkataraman Anantharaman. Phonocardiographic signal analysis method using a modified hidden markov model. Annals of Biomedical Engineering, 35(3):367–374, 2007.
[World Health Organization, 2017] World Health Organization. Cardiovascular diseases (cvds). http://who.
int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs317/en/,
2017. [Online; accessed 01-Febuary-2017].
[Zheng et al., 2015] Yineng Zheng, Xingming Guo, and Xiaorong Ding. A novel hybrid energy fraction and entropybased approach for systolic heart murmurs identification. Expert Systems with Applications, 42(5):2710–2721,
2015.

