Next Article in Journal
Toward the Required Detection Limits for Volatile Organic Constituents in Marine Environments with Infrared Evanescent Field Chemical Sensors
Next Article in Special Issue
Assessment of Ultra-Short Heart Variability Indices Derived by Smartphone Accelerometers for Stress Detection
Previous Article in Journal
Energy Efficient Multipath Routing Algorithm for Wireless Multimedia Sensor Network
Previous Article in Special Issue
Unobtrusive Estimation of Cardiovascular Parameters with Limb Ballistocardiography
Open AccessArticle

In-Ear Pulse Rate Measurement: A Valid Alternative to Heart Rate Derived from Electrocardiography?

Technical University of Munich, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Professorship of Sport Equipment and Materials, Boltzmannstraße 15, D-85747 Garching, Germany
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sensors 2019, 19(17), 3641; https://doi.org/10.3390/s19173641
Received: 10 July 2019 / Revised: 31 July 2019 / Accepted: 19 August 2019 / Published: 21 August 2019
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Wearable and Nearable Biosensors and Systems for Healthcare)
Heart rate measurement has become one of the most widely used methods of monitoring the intensity of physical activity. The purpose of this study was to assess whether in-ear photoplethysmographic (PPG) pulse rate (PR) measurement devices represent a valid alternative to heart rate derived from electrocardiography (ECG), which is considered a gold standard. Twenty subjects (6 women, 14 men) completed one trial of graded cycling under laboratory conditions. In the trial, PR was recorded by two commercially available in-ear devices, the Dash Pro and the Cosinuss°One. They were compared to HR measured by a Bodyguard2 ECG. Validity of the in-ear PR measurement devices was tested by ANOVA, mean absolute percentage errors (MAPE), intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC), and Bland–Altman plots. Both devices achieved a MAPE ≤5%. Despite excellent to good levels of agreement, Bland–Altman plots showed that both in-ear devices tend to slightly underestimate the ECG’s HR values. It may be concluded that in-ear PPG PR measurement is a promising technique that shows accurate but imprecise results under controlled conditions. However, PPG PR measurement in the ear is sensitive to motion artefacts. Thus, accuracy and precision of the measured PR depend highly on measurement site, stress situation, and exercise. View Full-Text
Keywords: photoplethysmography; heart rate; consumer-wearable devices; in-ear; validation; optical pulse rate monitoring; pulse rate photoplethysmography; heart rate; consumer-wearable devices; in-ear; validation; optical pulse rate monitoring; pulse rate
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Passler, S.; Müller, N.; Senner, V. In-Ear Pulse Rate Measurement: A Valid Alternative to Heart Rate Derived from Electrocardiography? Sensors 2019, 19, 3641.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Back to TopTop