MARATTO

article · Journal of Applied Informatics and Computing

Comparative Evaluation of MFCC and Mel-spectrogram Features for CNN-Based Respiratory Abnormality Detection

Abstract

Automated respiratory sound analysis addresses critical limitations in traditional clinical auscultation, particularly high inter-observer variability and limited specialist access in resource-constrained settings. This study rigorously compares Mel-Frequency Cepstral Coefficients (MFCC) and Mel-spectrogram representations for classifying respiratory abnormalities using convolutional neural networks. Using the ICBHI 2017 dataset (920 recordings, 6,898 cycles from 126 patients), we implemented identical CNN architectures differing only in input features. Class imbalance was addressed through Synthetic Minority Over-sampling Technique applied exclusively to training data. The MFCC model achieved 83% accuracy with superior sensitivity for normal sounds (97% recall), while Mel-spectrograms reached 82% accuracy with higher precision (95%). MFCC demonstrated better crackle detection (76% vs 73% recall) and wheeze precision (75% vs 71%), attributed to enhanced transient spectral capture through discrete cosine transformation. Both models showed strong discrimination (AUC > 0.90). MFCC offers computational efficiency advantages for screening applications, while Mel-spectrograms provide interpretability for diagnostic contexts. This controlled comparison provides evidence-based guidance for computer-aided respiratory diagnostic system design, particularly relevant for resource-limited healthcare environments.

Research topics

  • Phonocardiography and Auscultation Techniques
  • Respiratory and Cough-Related Research
  • COVID-19 diagnosis using AI

Sustainable Development Goals

Read the original research

This page summarises published work. The authoritative version sits with the publisher.

DOI: 10.30871/jaic.v10i2.12355

Is something wrong with this record? Report it or request removal.

Discussion

Discuss this research

Have you built on this work, tried to replicate it, or seen it applied in practice? Share what you know. Verified researchers and MARATTO™ domain experts can open a discussion, and any member can reply. Contributions are reviewed before they appear.

No discussion yet. Open the first thread.