Why the study?
Remote photoplethysmography allows contactless cardiac monitoring, but the accuracy and precision of the commercially available Facereader rPPG compared to gold standard electrocardiography needed assessment.
Does the Facereader rPPG accurately measure heart rate compared to a gold standard ECG in healthy participants?
Does the Facereader rPPG accurately measure heart rate compared to a gold standard ECG in healthy participants?
The Facereader rPPG technology is currently inaccurate and lacks the precision required for reliable contactless heart rate monitoring in individuals.
Facereader rPPG lacks precision for reliable heart rate monitoring; leaves open whether refinements can achieve clinical utility.
Remote photoplethysmography (rPPG) allows contactless monitoring of human cardiac activity through a video camera. In this study, we assessed the accuracy and precision for heart rate measurements of the only consumer product available on the market, namely the FacereaderTM rPPG by Noldus, with respect to a gold standard electrocardiograph. Twenty-four healthy participants were asked to sit in front of a computer screen and alternate two periods of rest with two stress tests (i.e. Go/No-Go task), while their heart rate was simultaneously acquired for 20 minutes using the ECG criterion measure and the FacereaderTM rPPG. Results show that the FacereaderTM rPPG tends to overestimate lower heart rates and underestimate higher heart rates compared to the ECG. The Facereader™ rPPG revealed a mean bias of 9.8 bpm, the 95% limits of agreement (LoA) ranged from almost -30 up to +50 bpm. These results suggest that whilst the rPPG FacereaderTM technology has potential for contactless heart rate monitoring, its predictions are inaccurate for higher heart rates, with unacceptable precision across the entire range, rendering its estimates unreliable for monitoring individuals.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Benedetto et al. (2019) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: