The 6-axis autocorrelation method combining accelerometer and gyroscope data reduced the mean error of Mean RR interval estimation to 2.23 ms compared to 3.36 ms with the single-axis method.
Observational (n=29)
No
Does joint accelerometer and gyroscope sensing (6-AC) improve heart rate variability estimation compared to single-axis sensing (1-AC) in healthy male volunteers?
Joint accelerometer and gyroscope sensing using a 6-axis autocorrelation method improves the accuracy of heart rate variability estimation compared to single-axis sensing, offering a promising approach for wearable devices.
Absolute Event Rate: 2.2278% vs 3.3608%
This paper describes a method for estimation of heart rate (HR) and heart rate variability (HRV) with accelerometers and gyroscopes. We denote this joint seismocardiography (SCG) and gyrocardiography (GCG) approach as SCG/GCG. In principle, SCG which is a well known method measures the linear mechanical movements of the heart and GCG is a new technique which measures angular motion due to the chest micro-vibrations caused by myocardial rotation. As electrocardiography (ECG), they can also be performed in non-invasive manner using a device in contact to subjects skin, for example. Our method extracts HRV parameters based on single-axis and multi-axes autocorrelation analysis (1-AC and 6-AC) of all simultaneously captured SCG/GCG axes. The results of each axes are combined to maintain reliable HR-and HRV. We validate our results with a comparison study between simultaneous ECG and SCG/GCG recordings using a study group of 29 healthy male volunteers. The study provides a promising approach for HRV estimation with modern wearable devices.
Lahdenoja et al. (Wed,) conducted a observational in Healthy (n=29). 6-axis autocorrelation (6-AC) using joint SCG/GCG vs. 1-axis autocorrelation (1-AC) was evaluated on Mean error of Mean RR interval (ms) compared to ECG. The 6-axis autocorrelation method combining accelerometer and gyroscope data reduced the mean error of Mean RR interval estimation to 2.23 ms compared to 3.36 ms with the single-axis method.