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.
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.
Spierer et al. (Fri,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: