Key result
RingConn Gen2 ring tracks heart rate with ~0.4 bpm mean bias versus chest straps during recovery.
Why the study?
Evidence remains limited regarding ring-based photoplethysmography devices for athlete monitoring in precision-sport settings and finger-worn form factors.
Does a ring-based PPG device accurately measure heart rate and heart rate variability compared to a chest-strap monitor in shooting athletes during post-training recovery?
Cross-Sectional (n=64)
No
Does a ring-based PPG device accurately measure heart rate and heart rate variability compared to a chest-strap monitor in shooting athletes during post-training recovery?
Mean Difference: -0.42 (95% CI -0.74–-0.09)
A ring-based PPG device provides highly accurate heart rate and SDNN measurements during seated recovery, but RMSSD measurements show wider variability that warrants caution when tracking small individual changes.
Ring PPG demonstrates strong seated agreement with chest-strap for HR/SDNN post-training; leaves open validation during active shooting and performance contexts.
Abstract Introduction: Ring-based photoplethysmography (PPG) devices are increasingly used in athlete monitoring, but evidence remains limited for precision-sport settings and finger-worn form factors. This study examined the agreement between a ring-based PPG device and a chest-strap monitor for heart rate (HR) and time-domain heart rate variability (HRV) metrics in shooting athletes. Methods: Sixty-four shooting athletes completed a 10-min seated recording initiated within 5 min after a routine scored training session. RingConn Gen2 and Polar H10 signals were acquired simultaneously using synchronized timestamps, refined by cross-correlation, and analyzed in 90-s windows after excluding the first and last 30 s. HR, the standard deviation of normal-to-normal intervals (SDNN), and the root mean square of successive differences (RMSSD) were derived from inter-beat intervals. Agreement was summarized using correlation and Bland-Altman analysis. Because multiple windows were nested within participants, window-level results are interpreted descriptively. Results: Agreement was very high for HR (; mean bias -0.42 bpm; 95% limits of agreement: -0.74 to -0.09 bpm), high for SDNN (; mean bias 1.25 ms; 95% limits of agreement: -3.83 to 6.33 ms), and high for RMSSD (; mean bias 1.62 ms; 95% limits of agreement: -10.08 to 13.34 ms). Discussion: Under seated, low-motion post-exercise recovery conditions, the ring-based device tracked HR and time-domain HRV metrics closely to the chest-strap monitor. These findings support the use of finger-based PPG for this specific measurement context, while broader application to daily training, movement-rich tasks, or competition settings requires further validation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tao et al. (2026) conducted a cross-sectional in Healthy shooting athletes (n=64). RingConn Gen2 ring-based PPG device vs. Polar H10 chest-strap monitor was evaluated on Heart rate agreement (MD -0.42 bpm, 95% CI -0.74 to -0.09). The RingConn Gen2 ring-based PPG device showed very high agreement with the Polar H10 chest-strap monitor for heart rate (r2 = 0.999, mean bias -0.42 bpm) in shooting athletes during seated recovery.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: