Cited by 43Non-Invasive Vital Sign MonitoringHeart Rate Variability and Autonomic ControlECG Monitoring and Analysis

Evaluating the accuracy of heart rate sensors based on photoplethysmography for in-the-wild analysis

Barrios, Liliana, Oldrati, Pietro, Santini, Silvia, Lutterotti, Andreas·2019·Proceedings of the 13th EAI International Conference on Pervasive Computing Technologies for Healthcare

Abstract

Continuous measurement of physiological functions, like heart rate (HR) and heart rate variability (HRV), using commercially available wearable sensors provides the prospects of improving the healthcare of individuals with a positive impact on society, bringing pervasiveness, lower cost, and broader access. However, common wearable devices use photoplethysmography (PPG) to derive data on HR and HRV, and it is yet unclear to which extent PPG signals can be used as a proxy for data collected using medical-grade devices. To address this challenge, we consider five consumer devices to assess the signal quality of HR and two devices measuring HRV and compare them with a standard electrocardiography (ECG) Holter monitor. We collect data from fourteen participants who followed a 55 minutes protocol for at least two sessions. Using this data set, which we make publicly available to the research community, we show that PPG is a valid proxy for both HR and standard time- and frequency-domain measurements of HRV. Further, we demonstrate that wearable devices are suitable for monitoring both HR and HRV in daily life but might be limited during strenuous exercise. The study indicates that armband-based devices are more reliable than wrist-based wearables for HRV assessment.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3329189.3329215

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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 Empatica E4 may be unsuited for monitoring everyday activities.

    “The device has also been evaluated in general purpose real-world settings, with results indicating that the Empatica E4 may be unsuited for monitoring everyday activities70,71.”

    From Data quality evaluation in wearable monitoring (2022) · cites this paper as [71]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Barrios, L., Oldrati, P., Santini, S., & Lutterotti, A.
Affiliations
  • ETH Zurich (CH)
  • Università della Svizzera Italiana (USI), Lugano, Switzerland
  • University of Zurich (CH)
Venue
Proceedings of the 13th EAI International Conference on Pervasive Computing Technologies for Healthcare
Publisher
ACM
Published
2019-05-20
Pages
251-261
ISSN
2153-1633 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2953978148
Cited by
43
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 1
FWCI
12.97
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
International Conference on Pervasive Computing Technologies for Healthcare (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Non-Invasive Vital Sign Monitoring
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Heart Rate Variability and Autonomic Control
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › ECG Monitoring and Analysis
Keywords
photoplethysmography, heart rate monitoring, heart rate variability, wearable sensors, consumer health devices, sensor accuracy, physical activity

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