Key result
Low-cost wearables provided heart rate and inter-beat interval measurements with accuracy close to professional high-end sensors, but accuracy was lower for galvanic skin response.
Why the study?
It was unclear how accurate physiological measurements from low-cost wearables are compared to well-calibrated, high-quality laboratory equipment used in research.
Do low-cost wearables provide accurate physiological measurements compared to high-quality laboratory sensors in participants cycling on an ergometer?
Cross-Sectional (n=18)
Do low-cost wearables provide accurate physiological measurements compared to high-quality laboratory sensors in participants cycling on an ergometer?
Low-cost wearables provide cardiovascular measurements (heart rate, inter-beat interval, heart rate variability) with accuracy close to professional high-end sensors, but are less accurate for galvanic skin response.
Low-cost wearables may enable accessible heart rate monitoring; leaves open their validity for research-grade galvanic skin response data.
Wearable sensors are increasingly used in research, as well as for personal and private purposes. A variety of scientific studies are based on physiological measurements from such rather low-cost wearables. That said, how accurate are such measurements compared to measurements from well-calibrated, high-quality laboratory equipment used in psychological and medical research? The answer to this question, undoubtedly impacts the reliability of a study's results. In this paper, we demonstrate an approach to quantify the accuracy of low-cost wearables in comparison to high-quality laboratory sensors. We therefore developed a benchmark framework for physiological sensors that covers the entire workflow from sensor data acquisition to the computation and interpretation of diverse correlation and similarity metrics. We evaluated this framework based on a study with 18 participants. Each participant was equipped with one high-quality laboratory sensor and two wearables. These three sensors simultaneously measured the physiological parameters such as heart rate and galvanic skin response, while the participant was cycling on an ergometer following a predefined routine. The results of our benchmarking show that cardiovascular parameters (heart rate, inter-beat interval, heart rate variability) yield very high correlations and similarities. Measurement of galvanic skin response, which is a more delicate undertaking, resulted in lower, but still reasonable correlations and similarities. We conclude that the benchmarked wearables provide physiological measurements such as heart rate and inter-beat interval with an accuracy close to that of the professional high-end sensor, but the accuracy varies more for other parameters, such as galvanic skin response.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sagl et al. (2019) reported a cross-sectional. Low-cost wearables vs. High-quality laboratory sensors was evaluated on Correlation and similarity of physiological parameters (heart rate, inter-beat interval, heart rate variability, galvanic skin response). Low-cost wearables provided heart rate and inter-beat interval measurements with accuracy close to professional high-end sensors, but accuracy was lower for galvanic skin response.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: