Comparison of Wearable and Clinical Devices for Acquisition of Peripheral Nervous System Signals
1
Department of Psychology and Cognitive Science, University of Trento, 38122 Trento, Italy
2
Psychology Program, School of Social Sciences, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore 639798, Singapore
3
HK3 Lab, Rovereto, 38068 Trento, Italy
4
Lee Kong Chian School of Medicine, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore 639798, Singapore
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sensors 2020, 20(23), 6778; https://doi.org/10.3390/s20236778
Received: 27 October 2020
/
Revised: 20 November 2020
/
Accepted: 25 November 2020
/
Published: 27 November 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Brain Signals Acquisition and Processing)
A key access point to the functioning of the autonomic nervous system is the investigation of peripheral signals. Wearable devices (WDs) enable the acquisition and quantification of peripheral signals in a wide range of contexts, from personal uses to scientific research. WDs have lower costs and higher portability than medical-grade devices. However, the achievable data quality can be lower, and data are subject to artifacts due to body movements and data losses. It is therefore crucial to evaluate the reliability and validity of WDs before their use in research. In this study, we introduce a data analysis procedure for the assessment of WDs for multivariate physiological signals. The quality of cardiac and electrodermal activity signals is validated with a standard set of signal quality indicators. The pipeline is available as a collection of open source Python scripts based on the pyphysio package. We apply the indicators for the analysis of signal quality on data simultaneously recorded from a clinical-grade device and two WDs. The dataset provides signals of six different physiological measures collected from 18 subjects with WDs. This study indicates the need to validate the use of WDs in experimental settings for research and the importance of both technological and signal processing aspects to obtain reliable signals and reproducible results.
View Full-Text
▼
Show Figures
Figure 1
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited
MDPI and ACS Style
Bizzego, A.; Gabrieli, G.; Furlanello, C.; Esposito, G. Comparison of Wearable and Clinical Devices for Acquisition of Peripheral Nervous System Signals. Sensors 2020, 20, 6778. https://doi.org/10.3390/s20236778
AMA Style
Bizzego A, Gabrieli G, Furlanello C, Esposito G. Comparison of Wearable and Clinical Devices for Acquisition of Peripheral Nervous System Signals. Sensors. 2020; 20(23):6778. https://doi.org/10.3390/s20236778
Chicago/Turabian StyleBizzego, Andrea, Giulio Gabrieli, Cesare Furlanello, and Gianluca Esposito. 2020. "Comparison of Wearable and Clinical Devices for Acquisition of Peripheral Nervous System Signals" Sensors 20, no. 23: 6778. https://doi.org/10.3390/s20236778
Find Other Styles
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.
