Why the study?
Motion artifacts and computational burden affect the applicability of non-contact single-camera monitoring of heart rate and respiratory rate.
Does a single digital camera with optimized ROI tracking accurately estimate heart rate and respiratory rate during static and dynamic activities compared to a reference wearable device in healthy volunteers?
Does a single digital camera with optimized ROI tracking accurately estimate heart rate and respiratory rate during static and dynamic activities compared to a reference wearable device in healthy volunteers?
A single digital camera can continuously estimate heart rate and respiratory rate with acceptable accuracy during static activities, though accuracy decreases during motion.
Acceptable static accuracy supports controlled testing; leaves open motion-resilient use in clinical populations pending validation.
Monitoring of heart rate (HR) and respiratory rate (fR) is fundamental to assess the health status of an individual. To address this scope, technologies which frame the upper body and the face regions of a subject without any physical contact can be used. Motion artifacts can affect the applicability of non-contact methods to the continuous monitoring of these parameters as well as the computational burden. This paper focuses on a technique based on images captured with a single digital camera for the continuous estimation of HR andfR. The main goal is to analyze how velocity of face movements and ROI tracking duration influence the performance of the method. Tests were performed on healthy volunteers during motionless trials (i.e., at rest and after exercise), head and torso movements, and during physical exercise. Results demonstrated that a continuous estimation of HR andfRcan be performed with acceptable errors under changing ROI tracking duration and velocity in motionless trials (MAE below 5 bpm and 3.42 breaths∙min-1for HR andfR, respectively), whereas during movements (mimicking head and torso movements, and during exercise) the error increases (MAE up to 5.42 bpm and up to 5.03 breaths∙min-1for HR andfR, respectively). The proposed investigation can provide a framework for the continuous estimation of HR andfRduring both static and dynamic activities by optimizing the ROI tracking duration under different velocity of face movements.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Molinaro et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: