Key result
Smartphone inertial sensors accurately track heart and breathing rates with >0.99 correlation to standard ECG.
Why the study?
Accelerometers and gyroscopes in smartphones enable SCG and GCG, motivating evaluation of smartphone inertial sensors for simultaneously measuring instantaneous heart and breathing rates.
Can smartphone inertial sensors accurately estimate instantaneous heart and breathing rates compared to standard ECG and respiration belts in healthy subjects?
Observational (n=10)
Can smartphone inertial sensors accurately estimate instantaneous heart and breathing rates compared to standard ECG and respiration belts in healthy subjects?
Effect estimate: R2 > 0.999
Smartphone inertial sensors can accurately measure instantaneous heart and breathing rates in resting healthy subjects without additional hardware, offering a potential tool for accessible cardiorespiratory monitoring.
May support smartphone cardiorespiratory monitoring in controlled research settings; leaves open validation in patients and real-world conditions.
Seismocardiography (SCG) and Gyrocardiography (GCG) use lightweight, miniaturized accelerometers and gyroscopes to record, respectively, cardiac-induced linear accelerations and angular velocities of the chest wall. These inertial sensors are also sensitive to thoracic movements with respiration, which cause baseline wanderings in SCG and GCG signals. Nowadays, accelerometers and gyroscopes are widely integrated into smartphones, thus increasing the potential of SCG and GCG as cardiorespiratory monitoring tools. This study investigates the accuracy of smartphone inertial sensors in simultaneously measuring instantaneous heart rates and breathing rates. Smartphone-derived SCG and GCG signals were acquired from 10 healthy subjects at rest. The performances of heartbeats and respiratory acts detection, as well as of inter-beat intervals (IBIs) and inter-breath intervals (IBrIs) estimation, were evaluated for both SCG and GCG via the comparison with simultaneous electrocardiography and respiration belt signals. Heartbeats were detected with a sensitivity and positive predictive value (PPV) of 89.3% and 93.3% in SCG signals and of 97.3% and 97.9% in GCG signals. Moreover, IBIs measurements reported strong linear relationships (R2 > 0.999), non-significant biases, and Bland–Altman limits of agreement (LoA) of ±7.33 ms for SCG and ±5.22 ms for GCG. On the other hand, respiratory acts detection scored a sensitivity and PPV of 95.6% and 94.7% for SCG and of 95.7% and 92.0% for GCG. Furthermore, high R2 values (0.976 and 0.968, respectively), non-significant biases, and an LoA of ±0.558 s for SCG and ±0.749 s for GCG were achieved for IBrIs estimates. The results of this study confirm that smartphone inertial sensors can provide accurate measurements of both instantaneous heart rate and breathing rate without the need for additional devices.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Cinotti et al. (2025) conducted an observational in Healthy (n=10). Smartphone inertial sensors (Seismocardiography and Gyrocardiography) vs. Electrocardiography (ECG) and respiration belt was evaluated on Accuracy of inter-beat intervals (IBIs) estimation (R2 > 0.999). Smartphone inertial sensors accurately estimated instantaneous heart rates and breathing rates, achieving strong linear relationships (R2 > 0.999) and narrow limits of agreement compared to reference ECG and respiration belt signals.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: