Key result
Unobtrusive foot photoplethysmography using multiple LED-PD pairs with a gap between the skin and sensors accurately estimated heart rate with a mean error of 0.638 beats/min compared to finger PPG.
Why the study?
Can unobtrusive photoplethysmography of the foot sole accurately estimate heart rate while standing?
Cross-Sectional (n=57)
No
Can unobtrusive photoplethysmography of the foot sole accurately estimate heart rate while standing?
Unobtrusive foot sole PPG using multiple LED-PD pairs can accurately estimate heart rate in a standing position, with the midfoot being the optimal sensor location.
Photoplethysmography (PPG) of the foot sole could provide additional health-related information compared with traditional PPG of the finger or wrist. Previously, foot PPG required the procedural binding of a light-emitting diode (LED)-photodetector (PD) pair. We achieved PPG of the foot sole without binding any sensors to the foot while the participant stood in a natural standing position on the testing device. Foot PPG was performed using multiple LED-PD pairs to overcome motion artefacts caused by stabilization. We identified regions of the sole suitable for reliable sensor positioning with optimal LED-PD pairs on the basis of the estimated heart rate (HR) and signal quality index derived by dynamic time warping (wSQI). The first experiment included four participants with direct skin-to-sensor contact, and the results showed a mean HR estimation error of 0.01 beats/min and a wSQI of 0.909. The extended experiment with 53 participants, which involved including a gap between the skin and sensors to consider real-life applications, yielded a mean HR estimation error of 0.638 beats/min and a wSQI of 0.751. Based on the selection ratio of optimal LED-PD pairs, the best region of the sole for PPG was the midfoot, except the medial longitudinal arch. In conclusion, we confirmed that foot PPG using multiple LED-PD pairs is appropriate for HR evaluation and further applications.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hong et al. (2018) conducted a cross-sectional in Healthy volunteers (n=57). Unobtrusive foot photoplethysmography (PPG) vs. Reference finger PPG was evaluated on Mean heart rate estimation error (beats/min). Unobtrusive foot photoplethysmography using multiple LED-PD pairs with a gap between the skin and sensors accurately estimated heart rate with a mean error of 0.638 beats/min compared to finger PPG.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: