Why the study?
Heart rate and respiratory rate can be estimated contactlessly from upper body and face videos, prompting evaluation of a continuous mobile device multi-ROI spectral monitoring technique.
Does a multi-ROI spectral approach using a mobile device camera accurately estimate heart rate and respiratory rate compared to reference devices in healthy volunteers?
Does a multi-ROI spectral approach using a mobile device camera accurately estimate heart rate and respiratory rate compared to reference devices in healthy volunteers?
A multi-ROI spectral approach using a smartphone camera can accurately estimate heart rate and respiratory rate in healthy volunteers.
Supports multi-ROI camera-based vital sign estimation in healthy volunteers; leaves open clinical validation and adoption.
Heart rate (HR) and respiratory rate (fR) can be estimated by processing videos framing the upper body and face regions without any physical contact with the subject. This paper proposed a technique for continuously monitoring HR and fR via a multi-ROI approach based on the spectral analysis of RGB video frames recorded with a mobile device (i.e., a smartphone’s camera). The respiratory signal was estimated by the motion of the chest, whereas the cardiac signal was retrieved from the pulsatile activity at the level of right and left cheeks and forehead. Videos were recorded from 18 healthy volunteers in four sessions with different user-camera distances (i.e., 0.5 m and 1.0 m) and illumination conditions (i.e., natural and artificial light). For HR estimation, three approaches were investigated based on single or multi-ROI approaches. A commercially available multiparametric device was used to record reference respiratory signals and electrocardiogram (ECG). The results demonstrated that the multi-ROI approach outperforms the single-ROI approach providing temporal trends of both the vital parameters comparable to those provided by the reference, with a mean absolute error (MAE) consistently below 1 breaths·min−1 for fR in all the scenarios, and a MAE between 0.7 bpm and 6 bpm for HR estimation, whose values increase at higher distances.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Molinaro et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: