Why the study?
It is critical to understand and characterize the accuracy of sensory measurements in earables that impact healthcare decisions.
Does in-ear PPG accurately measure vital signs across different sensor placements and during motion activities?
Does in-ear PPG accurately measure vital signs across different sensor placements and during motion activities?
In-ear PPG can detect vital signs but is susceptible to significant inaccuracies during motion activities, highlighting the need for careful mechanical design and signal processing.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
In-ear PPG accuracy needs clinical validation before decisions; leaves open reliable earable vital sign monitoring.
Earables are now pervasive, and their established purpose, ergonomy, and noninvasive interaction uncover exciting opportunities for sensing and healthcare research. However, it is critical to understand and characterize sensory measurements’ accuracy in earables impacting healthcare decisions. We report a systematic characterization of in-ear photoplethysmography (PPG) in measuring vital signs: heart rate (HR), heart rate variability (HRV), blood oxygen saturation (SpO₂2), and respiration rate (RR). We explore in-ear PPG inaccuracies stemming from different sensor placements and motion-induced artifacts. We observe statistically significant differences across sensor placements and between artifact types, with ITC placement showing the lowest intersubject variability. However, our study shows the absolute error climbs up to 29.84, 24.09, 3.28, and 30.80%, respectively, for HR, HRV, SpO₂2, and RR during motion activities. Our preliminary results suggest that in-ear PPG is reasonably accurate in detecting vital signs but demands careful mechanical design and signal processing treatment.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ferlini et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: