Some smartphones have the capability to process video streams from both the front- and rear-facing cameras simultaneously. This paper proposes a new monitoring method for simultaneous estimation of heart and breathing rates using dual cameras of a smartphone. The proposed approach estimates heart rates using a rear-facing camera, while at the same time breathing rates are estimated using a non-contact front-facing camera. For heart rate estimation, a simple application protocol is used to analyze the varying color signals of a fingertip placed in contact with the rear camera. The breathing rate is estimated from non-contact video recordings from both chest and abdominal motions. Reference breathing rates were measured by a respiration belt placed around the chest and abdomen of a subject; reference heart rates (HR) were determined using the standard electrocardiogram. An automated selection of either the chest or abdominal video signal was determined by choosing the signal with a greater autocorrelation value. The breathing rate was then determined by selecting the dominant peak in the power spectrum. To evaluate the performance of the proposed methods, data were collected from 11 healthy subjects. The breathing ranges spanned both low and high frequencies (6–60 breaths/min), and the results show that the average median errors from the reflectance imaging on the chest and the abdominal walls based on choosing the maximum spectral peak were 1.43% and 1.62%, respectively. Similarly, HR estimates were also found to be accurate.

Two parameters that a breathing status monitor should provide include tidal volume (VT ) and respiration rate (RR). Recently, we implemented an optical monitoring approach that tracks chest wall movements directly on a smartphone. In this paper, we explore the use of such noncontact optical monitoring to obtain a volumetric surrogate signal, via analysis of intensity changes in the video channels caused by the chest wall movements during breathing, in order to provide not only average RR but also information about VT and to track RR at each time instant (IRR). The algorithm, implemented on an Android smartphone, is used to analyze the video information from the smartphone's camera and provide in real time the chest movement signal from N = 15 healthy volunteers, each breathing at VT ranging from 300 mL to 3 L. These measurements are performed separately for each volunteer. Simultaneous recording of volume signals from a spirometer is regarded as reference. A highly linear relationship between peak-to-peak amplitude of the smartphone-acquired chest movement signal and spirometer VT is found (r ² = 0.951 ± 0.042, mean ± SD). After calibration on a subject-by-subject basis, no statistically significant bias is found in terms of VT estimation; the 95% limits of agreement are -0.348 to 0.376 L, and the rootmean-square error (RMSE) was 0.182 ± 0.107 L. In terms of IRR estimation, a highly linear relation between smartphone estimates and the spirometer reference was found (r ² = 0.999 ± 0.002). The bias, 95% limits of agreement, and RMSE are -0.024 breaths-per-minute (bpm), -0.850 to 0.802 bpm, and 0.414 ±0.178 bpm, respectively. These promising results show the feasibility of developing an inexpensive and portable breathing monitor, which could provide information about IRR as well as V _T , when calibrated on an individual basis, using smartphones. Further studies are required to enable practical implementation of the proposed approach.

Objective: Electrodermal activity (EDA) has been widely used to assess human response to stressful stimuli, including pain. Recently, spectral analysis of EDA has been found to be more sensitive and reproducible for assessment of sympathetic arousal than traditional indices (e.g., tonic and phasic components). However, none of the aforementioned analyses incorporate the differential characteristics of EDA, which could be more sensitive to capturing fast-changing dynamics associated with pain responses. Methods: We have tested the feasibility of using the derivative of phasic EDA and the modified time-varying spectral analysis of EDA. Sixteen subjects underwent four levels of pain stimulation using electric stimulation. Five-second segments of EDA were used for each level of stimulation, and pre-stimulation segments were considered stimulation level 0. We used support vector machines with the radial basis function kernel and multi-layer perceptron for three different scenarios of stimulation-level classification tasks: five stimulation levels (four levels of stimulation plus no stimulation); low, medium, and high pain stimulation (stimulation levels 0-1, 2, and 3-4, respectively); and high stimulation levels (stimulation levels 3-4) vs. no stimulation. Results: The maximum balanced accuracies were 44% (five stimulation levels), 63% (for low, medium, and high pain stimulation), and 87% (sensitivity 83% and specificity 89%, for high stimulation vs. no stimulation). Conclusion: The differential characteristics of EDA contributed highly to the accuracy of pain stimulation level detection of the classifiers. The external validity dataset was not considered in the study. Significance: Our approach has the potential for accurate pain quantification using EDA.

The most traditional sites for electrodermal activity (EDA) data collection, palmar locations such as fingers or palms, are not usually recommended for ambulatory monitoring given that subjects have to use their hands regularly during their daily activities, and therefore, alternative sites are often sought for EDA data collection. In this study, we collected EDA signals (n = 23 subjects, 19 male) from four measurement sites (forehead, back of neck, finger, and inner edge of foot) during cognitive stress and induction of mild motion artifacts by walking and one-handed weightlifting. Furthermore, we computed several EDA indices from the EDA signals obtained from different sites and evaluated their efficiency to classify cognitive stress from the baseline state. We found a high within-subject correlation between the EDA signals obtained from the finger and the feet. Consistently high correlation was also found between the finger and the foot EDA in both the phasic and tonic components. Statistically significant differences were obtained between the baseline and cognitive stress stage only for the EDA indices computed from the finger and the foot EDA. Moreover, the receiver operating characteristic curve for cognitive stress detection showed a higher area-under-the-curve for the EDA indices computed from the finger and foot EDA. We also evaluated the robustness of the different body sites against motion artifacts and found that the foot EDA location was the best alternative to other sites.

The subjectiveness of pain can lead to inaccurate prescribing of pain medication, which can exacerbate drug addiction and overdose. Given that pain is often experienced in patients’ homes, there is an urgent need for ambulatory devices that can quantify pain in real-time. We implemented three time- and frequency-domain electrodermal activity (EDA) indices in our smartphone application that collects EDA signals using a wrist-worn device. We then evaluated our computational algorithms using thermal grill data from ten subjects. The thermal grill delivered a level of pain that was calibrated for each subject to be 8 out of 10 on a visual analog scale (VAS). Furthermore, we simulated the real-time processing of the smartphone application using a dataset pre-collected from another group of fifteen subjects who underwent pain stimulation using electrical pulses, which elicited a VAS pain score level 7 out of 10. All EDA features showed significant difference between painless and pain segments, termed for the 5-s segments before and after each pain stimulus. Random forest showed the highest accuracy in detecting pain, 81.5%, with 78.9% sensitivity and 84.2% specificity with leave-one-subject-out cross-validation approach. Our results show the potential of a smartphone application to provide near real-time objective pain detection.

An objective measure of pain remains an unmet need of people with chronic pain, estimated to be 1/3 of the adult population in the United States. The current gold standard to quantify pain is highly subjective, based upon self-reporting with numerical or visual analog scale (VAS). This subjectivity complicates pain management and exacerbates the epidemic of opioid abuse. We have tested classification and regression machine learning models to objectively estimate pain sensation in healthy subjects using electrodermal activity (EDA). Twenty-three volunteers underwent pain stimulation using thermal grills. Three different “pain stimulation intensities” were induced for each subject, who reported the “pain sensation” right after each stimulus using a VAS (0–10). EDA data were collected throughout the experiment. For machine learning, we computed validated features of EDA based on time-domain decomposition, spectral analysis, and differential features. Models for estimation of pain stimulation intensity and pain sensation achieved maximum macroaveraged geometric mean scores of 69.7% and 69.2%, respectively, when three classes were considered (“No,” “Low,” and “High”). Regression of levels of stimulation intensity and pain sensation achieved R² values of 0.357 and 0.47, respectively. Overall, the high variance and inconsistency of VAS scores led to lower performance of pain sensation classification, but regression was better for pain sensation than stimulation intensity. Our results provide that three levels of pain can be quantified with good accuracy and physiological evidence that sympathetic responses recorded by EDA are more correlated to the applied stimuli’s intensity than to the pain sensation reported by the subject.