Wearable monitoring of heart rate (HR) during physical activity and exercising allows real time control of exercise intensity and training effect. Recently, technologies based on pulse plethysmography (PPG) have become available for personal health management for consumers. However, the accuracy of these monitors is poorly known which limits their application. In this study, we evaluated accuracy of two PPG based (wrist i.e. Mio Alpha vs forearm i.e. Schosche Rhythm) commercially available HR monitors during exercise. 21 healthy volunteers (15 male and 6 female) completed an exercise protocol which included sitting, lying, walking, running, cycling, and some daily activities involving hand movements. HR estimation was compared against values from the reference electrocardiogram (ECG) signal. The heart rate estimation reliability scores for <;5% accuracy against reference were following: mio Alpha 77,83% and Scosche Rhytm 76,29%. The estimated results indicate that performance of devices depends on various parameters, including specified activity, sensor type and device placement.

Heart rate variability (HRV) provides significant information about the health status of an individual. Optical heart rate monitoring is a comfortable alternative to ECG based heart rate monitoring. However, most available optical heart rate monitoring devices do not supply beat-to-beat detection accuracy required by proper HRV analysis. We evaluate the beat-to-beat detection accuracy of a recent wrist-worn optical heart rate monitoring device, PulseOn (PO). Ten subjects (8 male and 2 female; 35.9±10.3 years old) participated in the study. HRV was recorded with PO and Firstbeat Bodyguard 2 (BG2) device, which was used as an ECG based reference. HRV was recorded during sleep. As compared to BG2, PO detected on average 99.57% of the heartbeats (0.43% of beats missed) and had 0.72% extra beat detection rate, with 5.94 ms mean absolute error (MAE) in beat-to-beat intervals (RRI) as compared to the ECG based RRI BG2. Mean RMSSD difference between PO and BG2 derived HRV was 3.1 ms. Therefore, PO provides an accurate method for long term HRV monitoring during sleep.

Objective : Atrial fibrillation (AF) causes marked risk for patients, while silent fibrillation may remain unnoticed if not suspected and screened. Development of comfortable yet accurate beat-to-beat heart rate (HR) monitoring with good AF detection sensitivity would facilitate screening and improve treatment. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether a wrist-worn photoplethysmography (PPG) device can be used to monitor beat-to-beat HR accurately during post-operative treatment in patients suffering from AF and whether wrist-PPG can be used to distinguish AF from sinus rhythm (SR). Approach : Twenty-nine patients (14 with AF, 15 with SR, mean age 71.5 years) with multiple comorbidities were monitored during routine post-operative treatment. The monitoring included standard ECG, finger PPG monitoring and a wrist-worn PPG monitor with green and infrared light sources. The HR from PPG sensors was compared against ECG-derived HR. Main results : The wrist PPG technology had very good HR and beat detection accuracy when using green light. For the SR group, the mean absolute error (MAE) for HR was 1.50 bpm, and for the inter-beat intervals (IBI), the MAE was 7.64 ms. For the AF group, the MAE for HR was 4.28 bpm and for IBI, the MAE was 14.67 ms. Accuracy for the infrared (IR) channel was worse. Finger PPG provided similar accuracy for HR and better accuracy for the IBI. AF detection sensitivity using green light was 99.0% and the specificity was 93.0%. Performance can be improved by discarding unreliable IBI periods. Significance : Results suggest that wrist PPG measurement allows accurate HR and beat-to-beat HR monitoring also in AF patients, and could be used for differentiating between SR and AF with very good sensitivity.

PulseOn is a wrist-worn optical heart rate (HR) monitor based on photoplethysmography. It utilizes multi-wavelength technology and optimized sensor geometry to monitor blood flow at different depths of skin tissue, and it dynamically adapts to an optimal measurement depth in different conditions. Movement artefacts are reduced by adaptive movement-cancellation algorithms and optimized mechanics, which stabilize the sensor-to-skin contact. In this paper, we evaluated the accuracy and reliability of PulseOn technology against ECG-derived HR in laboratory conditions during a wide range of physical activities and also during outdoor sports. In addition, we compared the performance to another on-the-shelf wrist-worn consumer product Mio LINK ^® . The results showed PulseOn reliability (% of time with error <;10bpm) of 94.5% with accuracy (100% - mean absolute percentage error) 96.6% as compared to ECG (vs 86.6% and 94.4% for Mio LINK ^® , correspondingly) during laboratory protocol. Similar or better reliability and accuracy was seen during normal outdoor sports activities. The results show that PulseOn provides reliability and accuracy similar to traditional chest strap ECG HR monitors during cardiovascular exercise.

Heart rate (HR) and heart rate variability (HRV) based physiological metrics such as Excess Post-exercise Oxygen Consumption (EPOC), Energy Expenditure (EE), and Training Impulse (TRIMP) are widely utilized in coaching to monitor and optimize an athlete’s training load. Chest straps, and recently also dry electrodes integrated to special sports vests, are used to monitor HR during sports. Mechanical design, placement of electrodes, and ergonomics of the sensor affect the measured signal quality and artefacts. To evaluate the impact of the sensor mechanical design on the accuracy of the HR/HRV and further on to estimation of EPOC, EE, and TRIMP, we recorded HR and HRV from a chest strap and a vest with the same ECG sensor during supervised exercise protocol. A 3-lead clinical Holter ECG was used as a reference. Twenty-five healthy subjects (six females) participated. Mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) for HR was 0.76% with chest strap and 3.32% with vest. MAPE was 1.70% vs. 6.73% for EE, 0.38% vs. 8.99% for TRIMP and 3.90% vs. 54.15% for EPOC with chest strap and vest, respectively. Results suggest superior accuracy of chest strap over vest for HR and physiological metrics monitoring during sports.

Mobile and tablet apps, ubiquitous and pervasive computing, wearable computing and domotics for health.