| Literature DB >> 30261647 |
Seunghyeok Hong1, Kwang Suk Park2,3.
Abstract
Photoplethysmography (PPG) of the foot sole could provide additional health-related information compared with traditional PPG of the finger or wrist. Previously, foot PPG required the procedural binding of a light-emitting diode (LED)-photodetector (PD) pair. We achieved PPG of the foot sole without binding any sensors to the foot while the participant stood in a natural standing position on the testing device. Foot PPG was performed using multiple LED-PD pairs to overcome motion artefacts caused by stabilization. We identified regions of the sole suitable for reliable sensor positioning with optimal LED-PD pairs on the basis of the estimated heart rate (HR) and signal quality index derived by dynamic time warping (wSQI). The first experiment included four participants with direct skin-to-sensor contact, and the results showed a mean HR estimation error of 0.01 beats/min and a wSQI of 0.909. The extended experiment with 53 participants, which involved including a gap between the skin and sensors to consider real-life applications, yielded a mean HR estimation error of 0.638 beats/min and a wSQI of 0.751. Based on the selection ratio of optimal LED-PD pairs, the best region of the sole for PPG was the midfoot, except the medial longitudinal arch. In conclusion, we confirmed that foot PPG using multiple LED-PD pairs is appropriate for HR evaluation and further applications.Entities:
Keywords: foot PPG; photoplethysmography; sole PPG; ubiquitous; unconstrained
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30261647 PMCID: PMC6210668 DOI: 10.3390/s18103239
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Foot PPG with direct skin contact based on the anatomical structure. (a) Probe for foot PPG. (b) Probe locations and PD placement. (c) Anatomical structure of the sole of the foot.
Figure 2Foot PPG with a gap between the skin and embedded sensors. (a) Probes with a cover to form a gap between the skin and sensors. (b) Positions of four LEDs and 30 PDs.
Figure 3Process for signal quality assessments of foot PPG.
Figure 4SI and wSQI as a function of the time window of foot PPG of participant 1 (p1) with probe location 2, PD F17 and direct skin contact.
Figure 5Indices according to probe locations in p1 and a 6-s windows: (a) SI and (b) wSQI.
Comparison of the mean SQI values obtained for p1 with F17 for all time windows.
| Probe Location | oSQI | rSQI | wSQI |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0.743 | 0.745 | 0.882 |
| 2 | 0.763 | 0.766 | 0.897 |
| 3 | 0.831 | 0.835 | 0.906 |
| 4 | 0.729 | 0.726 | 0.846 |
| 5 | 0.708 | 0.712 | 0.827 |
| 6 | 0.915 | 0.918 |
|
| 7 | 0.436 | 0.438 | 0.613 |
| 8 | 0.468 | 0.464 | 0.704 |
| 9 | 0.269 | 0.277 | 0.402 |
| 10 | 0.260 | 0.258 | 0.408 |
| 11 | 0.272 | 0.276 | 0.628 |
LED-PD pairs yielding minimal HR errors in the direct-contact foot PPG experiment.
| Participant | wSQI | Probe Location | PD Position | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| p1 | 0.002 | 0.897 | 2 | F17 |
| p2 | 0.002 | 0.881 | 7 | F17 |
| p3 | 0.011 | 0.898 | 3 | F24 |
| p4 | 0.038 | 0.959 | 10 | B24 |
| Average | 0.013 | 0.909 |
Mean HR similarity index [%] for all participants and each LED-PD pair.
| Probe Location | Horizontal PDs | Vertical PDs | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| L24 | L17 | R17 | R24 | F24 | F17 | B17 | B24 | |
| 1 | 92.5 | 87.5 | 88.0 | 92.0 | 92.5 | 87.4 | 91.4 | 93.8 |
| 2 | 97.9 | 86.3 | 85.7 | 97.6 | 97.5 | 85.5 | 89.4 | 90.4 |
| 3 | 93.9 | 96.8 | 85.9 |
|
| 90.0 | 93.8 | 92.6 |
| 4 | 86.6 | 90.7 | 87.1 | 96.7 | 89.0 | 90.8 | 89.7 | 88.1 |
| 5 | 89.2 | 83.6 | 92.0 | 95.8 | 92.2 | 90.9 | 80.4 | 88.2 |
| 6 | 93.6 | 84.1 | 90.6 | 94.2 | 95.3 | 91.7 | 90.4 | 91.0 |
| 7 | 94.0 | 87.1 | 85.9 | 94.8 | 94.8 | 90.4 | 92.2 | 92.9 |
| 8 | 92.3 | 92.6 | 88.7 | 94.3 | 94.4 | 95.0 | 88.2 | 90.0 |
| 9 | 88.0 | 87.5 | 79.7 | 94.3 | 93.5 | 87.3 | 83.4 | 89.1 |
| 10 | 92.3 | 92.4 | 81.5 | 94.5 | 95.6 | 88.4 | 81.6 | 92.1 |
| 11 | 92.0 | 85.4 | 82.8 | 88.6 | 93.9 | 85.4 | 83.0 | 86.9 |
Figure 6Foot PPG wSQI as a function of probe location and PD distance.
HR, SI and wSQI for all participants from the top 12 LED-PD pairs with a gap between the skin and sensors.
| Selected Count Mean (SD) | LED | PD | wSQI | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7.4 (8.3) | 3 | R24 | 0.56 (0.40) | 99.4 (0.4) | 0.845 (0.065) |
| 5.9 (7.9) | 3 | B24 | 0.58 (0.41) | 99.3 (0.4) | 0.883 (0.054) |
| 3.8 (6.5) | 2 | R24 | 0.66 (0.45) | 99.2 (0.6) | 0.880 (0.068) |
| 3.8 (6.7) | 2 | F24 | 0.81 (0.34) | 99.1 (0.4) | 0.859 (0.074) |
| 2.8 (6.3) | 3 | F17 | 0.53 (0.43) | 99.3 (0.5) | 0.841 (0.076) |
| 2.0 (3.2) | 1 | B17 | 0.77 (0.47) | 99.1 (0.6) | 0.856 (0.068) |
| 2.0 (3.7) | 4 | F24 | 0.73 (0.44) | 99.1 (0.5) | 0.819 (0.075) |
| 1.0 (2.4) | 2 | F17 | 0.86 (0.45) | 99.0 (0.6) | 0.818 (0.058) |
| 1.0 (2.7) | 2 | B17 | 0.73 (0.52) | 99.2 (0.5) | 0.886 (0.050) |
| 0.9 (1.7) | 3 | B17 | 0.81 (0.65) | 99.0 (0.8) | 0.825 (0.077) |
| 0.8 (2.1) | 1 | L24 | 0.66 (0.48) | 99.2 (0.6) | 0.834 (0.079) |
| 0.8 (1.6) | 3 | R17 | 0.75 (0.48) | 99.2 (0.5) | 0.833 (0.084) |
Figure 7Top 12 LED-PD combinations superimposed on anatomical structure of the sole.
Selection ratio for each LED for sole lengths from the heel end to the metatarsal line.
| LED Number | Selection Ratio (%) | Sole Length (mm) Mean (SD) | Cases of Selection Ratio > 25% |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 12.1 | 173 (10) | 7 |
|
| 28.7 | 173 (11) | 22 |
|
| 49.9 | 174 (12) | 36 |
|
| 9.3 | 181 (11) | 6 |
Figure 8Scatter plots of HRs estimated by foot PPG and reference HRs with 40 time windows for 53 participants. (a) Linear regression plot. (b) Bland–Altman plot.
Mean coverage [%] for wSQI ranges, depending on the standing duration. We determined the p-values by a t-test with the null hypothesis that the mean wSQI coverage was not different between windows 1~20 and windows 21~40.
| Signal Quality Criteria | Standing Period | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Windows 1~20 | Windows 21~40 | ||
|
| 99.0% | 98.5% | 0.29 |
|
| 94.5% | 94.1% | 0.47 |
|
| 75.8% | 74.1% | 0.22 |
Wilcoxon rank-sum test results and mean (SD) signal quality metrics of different groups.
| Signal Quality Metric | Age | Sex | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ≤27 | >27 | Men | Women | |||
| 0.66 (0.31) | 0.61 (0.31) | 0.66 | 0.63 (0.34) | 0.65 (0.27) | 0.66 | |
| 99.2 (0.36) | 99.3 (0.38) | 0.65 | 99.3 (0.4) | 99.2 (0.33) | 0.41 | |
| wSQI | 0.859 (0.04) | 0.871 (0.03) | 0.51 | 0.867 (0.04) | 0.862 (0.03) | 0.54 |
Performance of unobtrusive measurements in previous studies.
| Authors | Modality | Quality Metrics | Performance | Participants |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| González-Landaeta et al., 2008 | BCG | Absolute 95% confidence interval of IBI | 21 ms | 17 (N.A.) |
| Diaz et al., 2010 | IPG | Absolute 95% confidence interval of IBI | 30.65 ms | 10 |
| Baek et al., 2012 | CCECG (back) | Mean HR error | 0.034 BPM (CCECG) | 5 men |
N.A.: Not available.