Measures of complexity in signal analysis
- Arbeitsgruppe Nichtlineare Dynamik der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft an der Universitaet Potsdam, Am Neuen Palais, D-14415 Potsdam, PSF 601553 (Germany)
- Institut fuer Psychologie, Universitaet Potsdam, Am Neuen Palais, D-14415 Potsdam, PSF 601553 (Germany)
- Arbeitsgruppe Nichtlineare Dynamik der Max-Planck-Gessellschaft an der Universitaet Potsdam, Am Neuen Palais, D-14415 Potsdam, PSF 601553 (Germany)
Observational data of natural systems, as measured in astrophysical, geophysical or physiological experiments are typically quite different from those obtained in laboratories. Due to the peculiarities with these data, well-known characteristics processes, such as periodicities or fractal dimension, often do not provide a suitable description. To study such data, we present here the use of measures of complexity, which are mainly basing on symbolic dynamics. We distinguish two types of such quantities: traditional measures (e.g. algorithmic complexity) which are measures of randomness and alternative measures (e.g. {epsilon}-complexity) which relate highest complexity to some critical points. It is important to note that there is no optimum measure of complexity. Its choice should depend on the context. Mostly, a combination of some such quantities is appropriate. Applying this concept to three examples in astrophysics, cardiology and cognitive psychology, we show that it can be helpful also in cases where other tools of data analysis fail. {copyright} {ital 1996 American Institute of Physics.}
- OSTI ID:
- 401072
- Report Number(s):
- CONF-950730-; ISSN 0094-243X; TRN: 96:029449
- Journal Information:
- AIP Conference Proceedings, Vol. 375, Issue 1; Conference: 3. technical conference on nonlinear dynamics (chaos) and full spectrum processing, Mystic, CT (United States), 10-13 Jul 1995; Other Information: PBD: Jun 1996
- Country of Publication:
- United States
- Language:
- English
Similar Records
The rules of information aggregation and emergence of collective intelligent behavior
Standard experimental paradigm designs and data exclusion practices in cognitive psychology can inadvertently introduce systematic “shadow” biases in participant samples