Key result
In-ear heartbeat sounds achieve ~81% stress classification accuracy versus ECG, driven by task-related artifacts.
Why the study?
Stress contributes significantly to tinnitus and decreased sound tolerance, but conventional hearing devices cannot monitor wearers' stress levels.
Does stress monitoring with in-ear heartbeat sounds accurately predict stress compared to clinical-grade ECG in healthy young adults?
Cross-Sectional (n=30)
No
Does stress monitoring with in-ear heartbeat sounds accurately predict stress compared to clinical-grade ECG in healthy young adults?
Robust stress classification can be achieved using only in-ear heartbeat sounds when artifact-related biases are addressed with data augmentation.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
In-ear sounds offer no true physiological edge over ECG for stress classification; leaves open whether artifact-corrected models enable reliable wearable monitoring.
Although stress plays a key role in tinnitus and decreased sound tolerance, conventional hearing devices used to manage these conditions are not currently capable of monitoring the wearer’s stress level. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of stress monitoring with an in-ear device. In-ear heartbeat sounds and clinical-grade electrocardiography (ECG) signals were simultaneously recorded while 30 healthy young adults underwent a stress protocol. Heart rate variability features were extracted from both signals to train classification algorithms to predict stress vs. rest. Models trained and tested using in-ear heartbeat sounds appeared to perform better than the models trained and tested using the ECG signals. However, further analyses comparing heart rate variability features extracted from ECG and the in-ear heartbeat sounds suggest that the improvement in stress prediction performance was driven by the increased presence of artifacts (e.g. movement or speech) during the stress tasks, rather than physiologically meaningful changes in the heartbeat signals that would be indicative of stress in real-world settings. To address this difference in error between rest and stress conditions, a data augmentation method was proposed to balance the error. The final system demonstrates the viability of robust stress recognition with only in-ear heartbeat sounds, which could expand the capabilities of hearing devices used to address conditions related to stress and noise. The proposed data augmentation method effectively identified and addressed artifact-related biases, which could broadly be applied to improve robustness of biosignal monitoring with machine learning. • Robust stress classification achieved using only in-ear heartbeat sounds. • Findings suggest the stress model exploited the error in in-ear audio features. • Increased feature error in stress conditions can lead to misleading accuracy scores. • Data augmentation method proposed to balance errors in stress and rest conditions. • Results could be applied to develop hearables that reduce stress from ambient noise.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Benesch et al. (2024) conducted a cross-sectional in Healthy (n=30). In-ear heartbeat sounds (Auditory Research Platform) vs. Clinical-grade electrocardiography (ECG) was evaluated on Accuracy of stress classification (stress vs. rest) without baselining using all HRV features (Logistic Regression). Models trained and tested using in-ear heartbeat sounds achieved 81.1% accuracy in stress classification compared to 76.5% for ECG, though this improvement was driven by task-related artifacts rather than physiological changes.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: