Validation of photoplethysmography as a method to detect heart rate during rest and exercise

J Med Eng Technol. 2015;39(5):264-71. doi: 10.3109/03091902.2015.1047536.

Abstract

Despite their enhanced marketplace visibility, validity of wearable photoplethysmographic heart rate monitoring is scarce. Forty-seven healthy participants performed seven, 6-min exercise bouts and completed a valid skin type scale. Participants wore an Omron HR500U (OHR) and a Mio Alpha (MA), two commercial wearable photoplethysmographic heart rate monitors. Data were compared to a Polar RS800CX (PRS). Means and error were calculated between devices using minutes 2-5. Compared to PRS, MA data was significantly different in walking, biking (2.41 ± 3.99 bpm and 3.26 ± 11.38 bpm, p < 0.05) and weight lifting (23.30 ± 31.94 bpm, p < 0.01). OHR differed from PRS in walking (4.95 ± 7.53 bpm, p < 0.05) and weight lifting (4.67 ± 8.95 bpm, p < 0.05). MA during elliptical, stair climbing and biking conditions demonstrated a strong correlation between jogging speed and error (r = 0.55, p < 0.0001), and showed differences in participants with less photosensitive skin.

Keywords: Exercise; fitness; heart rate monitors; photoplethysmogrphy; wearable technology.

Publication types

  • Evaluation Study
  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
  • Validation Study

MeSH terms

  • Actigraphy / instrumentation*
  • Actigraphy / methods
  • Adult
  • Algorithms
  • Diagnosis, Computer-Assisted / instrumentation
  • Diagnosis, Computer-Assisted / methods
  • Equipment Design
  • Equipment Failure Analysis
  • Exercise / physiology*
  • Female
  • Heart Rate / physiology*
  • Humans
  • Male
  • Monitoring, Ambulatory / instrumentation*
  • Monitoring, Ambulatory / methods
  • Motor Activity / physiology*
  • Photoplethysmography / instrumentation*
  • Photoplethysmography / methods
  • Reproducibility of Results
  • Rest / physiology
  • Sensitivity and Specificity