Cited by 91Non-Invasive Vital Sign MonitoringEEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesContext-Aware Activity Recognition Systems

Signal quality and patient experience with wearable devices for epilepsy management

Open access
Nasseri, Mona, Nurse, Ewan, Glasstetter, Martin, Böttcher, Sebastian, Gregg, Nicholas M., Laks Nandakumar, Aiswarya, Joseph, Boney, Pal Attia, Tal +10 more·2020·Epilepsia

Abstract

Noninvasive wearable devices have great potential to aid the management of epilepsy, but these devices must have robust signal quality, and patients must be willing to wear them for long periods of time. Automated machine learning classification of wearable biosensor signals requires quantitative measures of signal quality to automatically reject poor‐quality or corrupt data segments. In this study, commercially available wearable sensors were placed on patients with epilepsy undergoing in‐hospital or in‐home electroencephalographic (EEG) monitoring, and healthy volunteers. Empatica E4 and Biovotion Everion were used to record accelerometry (ACC), photoplethysmography (PPG), and electrodermal activity (EDA). Byteflies Sensor Dots were used to record ACC and PPG, the Activinsights GENEActiv watch to record ACC, and Epitel Epilog to record EEG data. PPG and EDA signals were recorded for multiple days, then epochs of high‐quality, marginal‐quality, or poor‐quality data were visually identified by reviewers, and reviewer annotations were compared to automated signal quality measures. For ACC, the ratio of spectral power from 0.8 to 5 Hz to broadband power was used to separate good‐quality signals from noise. For EDA, the rate of amplitude change and prevalence of sharp peaks significantly differentiated between good‐quality data and noise. Spectral entropy was used to assess PPG and showed significant differences between good‐, marginal‐, and poor‐quality signals. EEG data were evaluated using methods to identify a spectral noise cutoff frequency. Patients were asked to rate the usability and comfort of each device in several categories. Patients showed a significant preference for the wrist‐worn devices, and the Empatica E4 device was preferred most often. Current wearable devices can provide high‐quality data and are acceptable for routine use, but continued development is needed to improve data quality, consistency, and management, as well as acceptability to patients.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/epi.16527

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The quality of data can be expressed in many different ways, and data quality measures may also depend on the aims of the related analysis and project.

    “the quality of data can be expressed in many different ways, and data quality measures may also depend on the aims of the related analysis and project8–13”

    From Data quality evaluation in wearable monitoring (2022) · cites this paper as [9]

  • A clean BVP signal from the Empatica E4 without noise from motion artifacts has a smooth quasi-periodic signature, which can be separated from random noise or motion artifacts by analyzing the entropy of the signal spectrum.

    “A clean BVP signal from the Empatica E4 without noise from motion artifacts has a smooth quasi-periodic signature, which can be separated from random noise or, more importantly, from motion artifacts by analyzing the entropy of the signal spectrum.”

    From Data quality evaluation in wearable monitoring (2022) · cites this paper as [9]

  • Signal quality assessments have been done under more general circumstances, but wearable data quality in the context of epilepsy has not been a widely researched topic so far.

    “Signal quality assessments have been done under more general circumstances10,34–37, but wearable data quality in the context of epilepsy has not been a widely researched topic so far8,9,38.”

    From Data quality evaluation in wearable monitoring (2022) · cites this paper as [9]

  • Our signal quality metric is building on, expanding, and validating this research group's average values for what they describe as good, marginal, and noise data.

    “Still, our signal quality metric is building on, expanding, and validating this research group’s average values for what they describe as good, marginal, and noise data.”

    From Data quality evaluation in wearable monitoring (2022) · cites this paper as [9]

  • These kinds of artifacts can be detected by simple thresholding as well as analysis of the rate of amplitude change, similar to the artifacts seen in the temperature signal.

    “These kinds of artifacts can be detected by simple thresholding as well as analysis of the rate of amplitude change9,12, similar to the artifacts seen in the temperature signal.”

    From Data quality evaluation in wearable monitoring (2022) · cites this paper as [9]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 40 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Nasseri, M., Nurse, E., Glasstetter, M., Boettcher, S., Gregg, N. M., Nandakumar, A. L., Joseph, B., Attia, T. P., Viana, P. F., Bruno, E., Biondi, A., Cook, M., Worrell, G. A., Schulze- Bonhage, A., Duempelmann, M., Freestone, D. R., Richardson, M. P. & Brinkmann, B. H. (2020). Signal quality and patient experience with wearable devices for epilepsy management. EPILEPSIA, 61 (S1), pp.S25-S35. https://doi.org/10.1111/epi.16527. Persistent Link: http://hdl.handle.net/11343/275866 File Description: Accepted version

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Nasseri, M., Nurse, E., Glasstetter, M., Böttcher, S., Gregg, N. M., Laks Nandakumar, A., Joseph, B., Pal Attia, T., Viana, P. F., Bruno, E., Biondi, A., Cook, M., Worrell, G. A., Schulze‐Bonhage, A., Dümpelmann, M., Freestone, D. R., Richardson, M. P., & Brinkmann, B. H.
Affiliations
  • Mayo Clinic (US)
  • The University of Melbourne (AU)
  • University of Freiburg (DE)
  • College of Medicine University of Illinois Peoria Illinois USA
  • Bioelectronics Neurophysiology and Engineering Laboratory Department of Neurology Mayo Clinic Rochester Minnesota USA
  • University of Lisbon (PT)
  • King's College London (GB)
  • Seer Medical Melbourne Victoria Australia
Corresponding author
Brinkmann, Benjamin H.
Venue
Epilepsia
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2020-06-04
Volume
61
Issue
S1
Pages
S25-S35
ISSN
  • 0013-9580 (ISSN-L)
  • 1528-1167
OpenAlex
W3033023978
Cited by
90
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 2
FWCI
3.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Epilepsia (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Minerva Access (University of Melbourne) (submittedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
The Epilepsy Foundation of America's Epilepsy Innovation Institute My Seizure Gauge project
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Non-Invasive Vital Sign Monitoring
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › EEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Context-Aware Activity Recognition Systems
Keywords
epilepsy, wearable sensors, signal quality, patient experience, accelerometry, photoplethysmography, electrodermal activity, EEG monitoring, Empatica E4, spectral entropy, noise detection, device comfort, patient acceptability, wearable biosensors
MeSH terms
Wearable Electronic Devices, Adult, Aged, Epilepsy, Female, Galvanic Skin Response, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Signal Processing, Computer-Assisted, Photoplethysmography, Monitoring, Ambulatory, Young Adult, Patient Preference, Accelerometry

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review