Why the study?
Do wearable photoplethysmographic heart rate monitors accurately measure heart rate compared to a reference monitor during rest and exercise in healthy participants?
Do wearable photoplethysmographic heart rate monitors accurately measure heart rate compared to a reference monitor during rest and exercise in healthy participants?
Commercial wearable photoplethysmographic heart rate monitors demonstrate significant measurement errors compared to a reference standard during specific physical activities, particularly weight lifting.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Exercise caution with wearable HR data during weight lifting; cross-sectional data leaves open validation needs in clinical populations.
Despite their enhanced marketplace visibility, validity of wearable photoplethysmographic heart rate monitoring is scarce. Forty-seven healthy participants performed seven, 6-min exercise bouts and completed a valid skin type scale. Participants wore an Omron HR500U (OHR) and a Mio Alpha (MA), two commercial wearable photoplethysmographic heart rate monitors. Data were compared to a Polar RS800CX (PRS). Means and error were calculated between devices using minutes 2-5. Compared to PRS, MA data was significantly different in walking, biking (2.41 ± 3.99 bpm and 3.26 ± 11.38 bpm, p < 0.05) and weight lifting (23.30 ± 31.94 bpm, p < 0.01). OHR differed from PRS in walking (4.95 ± 7.53 bpm, p < 0.05) and weight lifting (4.67 ± 8.95 bpm, p < 0.05). MA during elliptical, stair climbing and biking conditions demonstrated a strong correlation between jogging speed and error (r = 0.55, p < 0.0001), and showed differences in participants with less photosensitive skin.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Spierer et al. (2015) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: