Cited by 33Non-Invasive Vital Sign MonitoringHeart Rate Variability and Autonomic ControlECG Monitoring and Analysis

On the Minimal Adequate Sampling Frequency of the Photoplethysmogram for Pulse Rate Monitoring and Heart Rate Variability Analysis in Mobile and Wearable Technology

Open access
Béres, Szabolcs, Holczer, Lőrinc, Hejjel, László·2019·Measurement Science Review

Abstract

Recently there has been great interest in photoplethysmogram signal processing. However, its minimally necessary sampling frequency for accurate heart rate variability parameters is ambiguous. In the present paper frequency-modulated 1.067 Hz cosine wave modelled the variable PPG in silico . The five-minute-long, 1 ms resolution master-signals were decimated (D) at 2-500 ms, then cubic spline interpolated (I) back to 1 ms resolution. The mean pulse rate, standard deviation, root mean square of successive pulse rate differences (RMSSD), and spectral components were computed by Varian 2.3 and compared to the master-series via relative accuracy error. Also Poincaré-plot morphology was assessed. Mean pulse rate is accurate down to 303 ms (D) and 400 ms (I). In low-variability series standard deviation required at least 5 ms (D) and 100 ms (I). RMSSD needed 10 ms (D), and 303 ms (I) in normal, whereas 2 ms (D) and 100 ms (I) in low- variability series. In the frequency domain 5 ms (D) and 100 ms (I) are required. 2 ms (D) and 100 ms (I) preserved the Poincaré-plot morphology. The minimal sampling frequency of PPG for accurate HRV analysis is higher than expected from the signal bandwidth and sampling theorem. Interpolation improves accuracy. The ratio of sampling error and expected variability should be considered besides the inherent sensitivity of the given parameter, the interpolation technique, and the pulse rate detection method.

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 · 10.2478/msr-2019-0030

Cites

32 of 32 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?

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Béres, S., Holczer, L., & Hejjel, L.
Affiliations
University of Pecs (HU)
Corresponding author
Hejjel, László
Venue
Measurement Science Review
Published
2019-10-01
Volume
19
Issue
5
Pages
232-240
ISSN
1335-8871 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2980118066
Cited by
33
References
32
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 4
FWCI
1.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Measurement Science Review (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Pécsi Tudományegyetem
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
photoplethysmogram, sampling frequency, heart rate variability, pulse rate monitoring, cubic spline interpolation, RMSSD, Poincaré plot, wearable sensors, mobile health

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