ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2026
EEG and IMU Gait Signal Processing: A Comparative Assessment of the "Reza" Exponential Filter and Classical Filters.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Noise degrades both EEG and gait signals, and classical IIR filters (Butterworth, Chebyshev, elliptic) involve trade-offs between passband flatness, ripple, and roll-off. This study compared a novel exponential "Reza" filter with these designs for neural and locomotor data. We analyzed an open-source mobile brain-body imaging dataset with EEG and gait data from 49 healthy adults (EEG: 256-channel, 512 Hz; IMUs: six APDM Opals, 128 Hz). EEG channels were grand-averaged and band-pass filtered at 0.5-50 Hz, while IMU axes were averaged and band-pass filtered at 0.5-5 Hz. The outcomes were signal-to-noise ratio SNR (dB) and band-integrated Welch PSD (EEG:0.5-50 Hz; IMU:0.5-5 Hz). Repeated-measures ANOVAs tested the effect of filter types (Butterworth, Chebyshev I, elliptic, Reza) with Bonferroni-adjusted post hoc tests for the six pairwise filter comparisons (αadj = 0.0083). We reported partial eta-squared (ηp2) as the ANOVA effect size. For EEG, PSD did not differ among filters (p = 0.146), whereas SNR differed strongly (p<0.001): Chebyshev and elliptic yielded the highest mean SNR and did not differ from each other, while both exceeded Butterworth, Reza was the lowest. For IMU, both SNR (p< 0.001) and PSD (p< 0.001) differed: Reza produced the highest mean SNR (significantly exceeding elliptic and Chebyshev), while Butterworth exceeded Chebyshev; meanwhile, IMU PSD showed a clear ordering with Reza retaining the most motion-band power, followed by Butterworth, then Chebyshev, with elliptic retaining the least. These results showed that filter choice materially shapes EEG and gait outcomes. For EEG, Chebyshev maximized SNR, while elliptic and Reza maintained comparable fidelity. For IMU gait signals, Reza matched Butterworth for denoising and preserved more signal power. Therefore, filter choice should be guided by the target outcome (SNR vs. band power) rather than a single default design.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.