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.

Direct Link: https://doi.org/10.3109/03091902.2015.1047536

Journal: Journal of medical engineering & technology. 2015 Jul 4;39(5):264-71

Keywords: exercise, fitness, Heart Rate, photoplethysmogrphy, wearable technology,

Applications: Heart Rate,

CamNtech Reference: AH15042

Back to Search Results

UK & International customers

CamNtech Ltd.
Manor Farm
Fenstanton
Cambridgeshire
PE28 9JD, UK

US customers

CamNtech Inc.
630 Boerne Stage Airfield,
Boerne,
Texas 78006,
USA

Copyright

© 2020 CamNtech Ltd and CamNtech Inc

Company information

Registered in England No. 2221302
VAT No: GB486 3019 34


Privacy Policy