Why the study?
The study was designed to select the optimal number and body location of piezoresistive sensors for wearable respiratory rate estimation systems.
Does a PCA-based method using piezoresistive sensors accurately estimate respiratory rate compared to a flowmeter in healthy male subjects?
Does a PCA-based method using piezoresistive sensors accurately estimate respiratory rate compared to a flowmeter in healthy male subjects?
A four-sensor piezoresistive wearable configuration provides effective respiratory rate monitoring across different levels of physical activity.
Optimal sensor placement via PCA feasible in wearables; leaves open validation in clinical populations.
This work aims at selecting the number and the body location of piezoresistive sensors to instrument wearable systems for respiratory rate (RR) estimation. We tested a novel method based on Principal Component Analysis on 10 healthy male subjects, who were asked to perform six trials on a treadmill (at rest, during walking and low speed running). We monitored RR using both a smart garment composed of six piezoresistive sensors and a flowmeter, used as reference signal. On the basis of the results, we propose the following guidelines: i) breathing assessment at rest requires one sensor, placed on the lower thorax; ii) low speed walking assessment requires three sensors, placed on upper thorax, lower thorax and abdomen; iii) high speed walking and running assessment requires a four-sensor configuration (one sensor placed on the upper thorax, one on the lower thorax and two on the abdomen); iv) an effective assessment can be performed at all speeds using the above-mentioned four-sensor configuration, denoted as General Purpose Configuration.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Raiano et al. (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: