Fitbit Charge 6 (MAE 4.5 bpm, MAPE 5.5%, CCC 0.93) and Google Pixel Watch 2 (MAE 4.9 bpm, MAPE 6.7%, CCC 0.87) showed highest heart rate accuracy across activities and climates.
Does optical heart rate measurement from 10 commercial wearables accurately reflect ECG-derived heart rate in healthy adults under varying climate and activity conditions?
Wearable heart rate measurement accuracy is highly device-specific and degrades during irregular movement, with Fitbit Charge 6 and Google Pixel Watch 2 demonstrating the highest reliability among the tested devices.
Absolute Event Rate: 0% vs 0%
Abstract Background Commercial wearable devices allow for continuous heart rate (HR) monitoring in daily life. Their accuracy under ecologically valid conditions, however, remains insufficiently independently tested, especially during irregular activity, cognitive stress, and variable climates. Objective This study evaluated the HR accuracy of 10 commercially available wearables under controlled variations in physical activity, cognitive stress, and temperature. We hypothesized that physical activity irregularity, cognitive stress, and thermal climate conditions would affect measurement accuracy. Methods Forty-five healthy adults (21‐68, mean 34, SD 12 y) completed a standardized protocol in climate-controlled chambers simulating neutral (23 °C), hot (36 °C), and cold (10 °C) conditions. Tasks included rest, cognitive stress (Montreal Imaging Stress Task), steady walking, and intermittent walking. Each of the 10 devices (Fitbit Charge 6, Fitbit Inspire 3, Garmin Vivosmart 5, Garmin Vivoactive 5, Apple Watch SE, Google Pixel Watch 2, Polar Ignite 3, Polar Pacer, Xiaomi Watch 2, and Oura Ring Gen 3) was compared against electrocardiogram-derived HR from a Zephyr BioHarness chest strap. Accuracy was assessed using mean absolute error (MAE), mean absolute percentage error (MAPE), repeated-measures concordance correlation coefficient (CCC), and Bland-Altman analysis. Results Significant variability across the devices was observed. Fitbit Charge 6 (MAE 4.5 bpm, MAPE 5.5%, CCC 0.93) and Google Pixel Watch 2 (MAE 4.9 bpm, MAPE 6.7%, CCC 0.87) showed strong agreement with the gold standard. In contrast, Fitbit Inspire 3, Polar Ignite 3, Polar Pacer, and Oura Ring displayed larger errors (MAE 9‐14 bpm, MAPE 11%‐16%) and lower CCC values (0.45‐0.66). The climate conditions did not significantly affect the measurement accuracy of the test devices. The activity type, however, did have a significant effect: intermittent walking increased errors for multiple devices. Conclusions Wearable HR measurement accuracy is device-specific and context-dependent. Moderate climates did not impair performance, but irregular movement reduced accuracy. Fitbit Charge 6 and Google Pixel Watch 2 demonstrated the highest reliability, supporting their use in health and sports monitoring. Careful device selection and context-aware interpretation remain critical for applied and clinical applications.
Gielen et al. (Tue,) reported a other. Fitbit Charge 6 (MAE 4.5 bpm, MAPE 5.5%, CCC 0.93) and Google Pixel Watch 2 (MAE 4.9 bpm, MAPE 6.7%, CCC 0.87) showed highest heart rate accuracy across activities and climates.