Key result
Heart rate variability extracted from a smartphone camera showed a mean square error of 10 ms or less compared to electrocardiogram in four out of five subjects, though high-frequency variations were slightly overestimated.
Why the study?
Does a smartphone camera-based algorithm accurately extract heart rate variability compared to an electrocardiogram?
Does a smartphone camera-based algorithm accurately extract heart rate variability compared to an electrocardiogram?
A smartphone camera can extract heart rate variability with negligible differences compared to ECG, suggesting potential utility for quick autonomic nervous system assessment.
May support rapid autonomic assessment via smartphone; leaves open reliability for clinical use pending larger validation.
It is known that blood circulation in human body causes the skin tone to change concurrently with heartbeats. A number of apps have been developed to measure the heartbeat using smartphone camera; however, no any further analysis is performed. In this paper we propose an algorithm that detects heartbeats from the phone's camera and further extracts the heart rate variability (HRV). We compare the HRV extracted from the camera with the HRV extracted from the electrocardiogram. We estimated a number of commonly used HRV characteristics and compared them. Our results show that smartphone camera leads to slightly overestimated characteristics although the difference in extracted HRV signals is negligible. As a consequence we suggest that a smartphone camera can be employed in a quick heart diagnosis and diagnosis of autonomic nervous system.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lenskiy et al. (2013) studied Healthy (n=5). Smartphone camera photoplethysmography vs. Electrocardiogram (ECG) was evaluated on Mean square error (MSE) and time domain characteristics (RMS-SD, SDNN) between HRV extracted from camera and ECG. Heart rate variability extracted from a smartphone camera showed a mean square error of 10 ms or less compared to electrocardiogram in four out of five subjects, though high-frequency variations were slightly overestimated.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: