Next Article in Journal
Mine-DW-Fusion: BEV Multiscale-Enhanced Fusion Object-Detection Model for Underground Coal Mine Based on Dynamic Weight Adjustment
Previous Article in Journal
Improved WOA-DBSCAN Online Clustering Algorithm for Radar Signal Data Streams
Previous Article in Special Issue
A Wearable Silent Text Input System Using EMG and Piezoelectric Sensors
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
This is an early access version, the complete PDF, HTML, and XML versions will be available soon.
Brief Report

Activity Type Effects Signal Quality in Electrocardiogram Devices

1
Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory (JHU/APL), Laurel, MD 20723, USA
2
Orthopedics and Sports Medicine, MedStar Health Research Institute, Baltimore, MD 21218, USA
3
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA
4
Department of Exercise Science, Elon College, College of Arts & Sciences, Elon University, Elon, NC 27244, USA
5
Center for the Advancement of Well-Being, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA 22030, USA
6
Sports Medicine Assessment Research & Testing (SMART) Laboratory, George Mason University, Manassas, VA 20110, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sensors 2025, 25(16), 5186; https://doi.org/10.3390/s25165186
Submission received: 19 June 2025 / Revised: 8 August 2025 / Accepted: 19 August 2025 / Published: 20 August 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Biosignal Sensing Analysis (EEG, EMG, ECG, PPG) (2nd Edition))

Abstract

Electrocardiogram (ECG) devices are commonly used to monitor heart rate (HR) and heart rate variability (HRV), but their signal quality under non-upright or torso-dominant activities may suffer due to motion artifact and interference from surrounding musculature. We compared ECG signal quality during treadmill walking, circuit training, and an obstacle course using three chest-worn commercial devices (Polar H10, Equivital EQ-02, and Zephyr BioHarness 3.0) and a multi-lead ECG monitor (BIOPAC). Signal quality was quantified using the beat signal quality index (SQI), and HR data were rejected if SQI fell below 0.7 or if values were physiologically implausible. Signal rejection rate was calculated as the proportion of low-quality observations across device and activity type. Significant effects of both device (p < 0.001) and activity (p < 0.001) were observed, with greater signal rejection during the obstacle course and circuit training compared to treadmill walking (p < 0.01). The Zephyr exhibited significantly higher rejection rates than the Polar (p = 0.018) and BIOPAC (p = 0.017), while the Polar showed lower average rejection rates across all activities. These findings underscore the importance of including dynamic, non-upright tasks in ECG validation protocols and suggest that certain commercial devices may be more robust under realistic conditions.
Keywords: wearable ECG devices; electrocardiogram; ECG signal quality; motion artifact; physiological monitoring wearable ECG devices; electrocardiogram; ECG signal quality; motion artifact; physiological monitoring

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Lindsey, B.; Snyder, S.; Zhou, Y.; Shim, J.K.; Hahn, J.-O.; Evans, W.; Martin, J. Activity Type Effects Signal Quality in Electrocardiogram Devices. Sensors 2025, 25, 5186. https://doi.org/10.3390/s25165186

AMA Style

Lindsey B, Snyder S, Zhou Y, Shim JK, Hahn J-O, Evans W, Martin J. Activity Type Effects Signal Quality in Electrocardiogram Devices. Sensors. 2025; 25(16):5186. https://doi.org/10.3390/s25165186

Chicago/Turabian Style

Lindsey, Bryndan, Samantha Snyder, Yuanyuan Zhou, Jae Kun Shim, Jin-Oh Hahn, William Evans, and Joel Martin. 2025. "Activity Type Effects Signal Quality in Electrocardiogram Devices" Sensors 25, no. 16: 5186. https://doi.org/10.3390/s25165186

APA Style

Lindsey, B., Snyder, S., Zhou, Y., Shim, J. K., Hahn, J.-O., Evans, W., & Martin, J. (2025). Activity Type Effects Signal Quality in Electrocardiogram Devices. Sensors, 25(16), 5186. https://doi.org/10.3390/s25165186

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop