| Literature DB >> 30986953 |
Víctor Toral1, Antonio García2, Francisco J Romero3, Diego P Morales4, Encarnación Castillo5, Luis Parrilla6, Francisco M Gómez-Campos7, Antonio Morillas8, Alejandro Sánchez9.
Abstract
Wearable monitoring devices are now a usual commodity in the market, especially for the monitoring of sports and physical activity. However, specialized wearable devices remain an open field for high-risk professionals, such as military personnel, fire and rescue, law enforcement, etc. In this work, a prototype wearable instrument, based on reconfigurable technologies and capable of monitoring electrocardiogram, oxygen saturation, and motion, is presented. This reconfigurable device allows a wide range of applications in conjunction with mobile devices. As a proof-of-concept, the reconfigurable instrument was been integrated into ad hoc glasses, in order to illustrate the non-invasive monitoring of the user. The performance of the presented prototype was validated against a commercial pulse oximeter, while several alternatives for QRS-complex detection were tested. For this type of scenario, clustering-based classification was found to be a very robust option.Entities:
Keywords: ECG; oxygen saturation; reconfigurable instrumentation; wearable instruments
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30986953 PMCID: PMC6479924 DOI: 10.3390/s19071590
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Conceptual schematic of the prototype. PSoC = Programmable System on Chip; BLE = Bluetooth Low-Energy; PPG = photoplethysmography; ECG = electrocardiography; PWM = Pulse Width Modulation; UART = Universal Asynchronous Receiver Transceiver; JTAG = Joint Test Action Group.
Figure 2Contributing factors to PPG signals and expected waveform [25].
Figure 3Schematic of the PPG subsystem. TIA = Trans-Impedance Amplifier.
Figure 4ECG waveform composition [30].
Figure 5ECG acquisition subsystem.
Figure 6Prototype Circuit Board (PCB) of prototype device: (a) top side; (b) bottom side with the communications system.
Figure 7ECG thread format.
Figure 8Proof-of-concept frame for prototype integration.
Figure 9Android app screenshots.
Figure 10Beats per minute (BPM) (a) and SpO2 (b) results compared to a clinical pulse oximeter (dotted lines represent ±3-BPM and ±1% deviations, respectively).
Figure 11Raw and denoised ECG (dots correspond to detected QRS complexes).
Results for QRS-complex extraction from ECG registers.
| Register | Threshold | Clustering | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TD | FN | FP |
| PDV % | TD | FN | FP | PDV % | ||||||
| 1 | 40 | 3 | 1 | 90.91 | 97.56 | 93.02 | 95.24 | 41 | 2 | 0 | 95.35 | 100.00 | 95.35 | 97.62 |
| 2 | 5 | 38 | 2 | 11.11 | 71.43 | 11.63 | 20.00 | 41 | 2 | 0 | 95.35 | 100.00 | 95.35 | 97.62 |
| 3 | 40 | 3 | 0 | 93.02 | 100.00 | 93.02 | 96.39 | 42 | 1 | 0 | 97.67 | 100.00 | 97.67 | 98.82 |
| 4 | 40 | 3 | 0 | 93.02 | 100.00 | 93.02 | 96.39 | 43 | 0 | 0 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 |
| 5 | 1 | 40 | 1 | 2.38 | 50.00 | 2.44 | 4.65 | 40 | 0 | 0 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 |
| 6 | 6 | 35 | 1 | 14.29 | 85.71 | 14.63 | 25.00 | 34 | 6 | 2 | 80.95 | 94.44 | 85.00 | 89.47 |
| 7 | 30 | 16 | 4 | 60.00 | 88.24 | 65.22 | 75.00 | 34 | 2 | 0 | 94.44 | 100.00 | 94.44 | 97.14 |
| 8 | 29 | 15 | 0 | 65.91 | 100.00 | 65.91 | 79.45 | 41 | 3 | 0 | 93.18 | 100.00 | 93.18 | 96.47 |
| 9 | 33 | 6 | 2 | 80.49 | 94.29 | 84.62 | 89.19 | 38 | 1 | 1 | 95.00 | 97.44 | 97.44 | 97.44 |
| 10 | 79 | 2 | 0 | 97.53 | 100.00 | 97.53 | 98.75 | 77 | 4 | 0 | 95.06 | 100.00 | 95.06 | 97.47 |
| 11 | 33 | 7 | 0 | 82.50 | 100.00 | 82.50 | 90.41 | 36 | 4 | 0 | 90.00 | 100.00 | 90.00 | 94.74 |
| 12 | 34 | 6 | 0 | 85.00 | 100.00 | 85.00 | 91.89 | 36 | 4 | 0 | 90.00 | 100.00 | 90.00 | 94.74 |
| 13 | 33 | 7 | 0 | 82.50 | 100.00 | 82.50 | 90.41 | 36 | 4 | 0 | 90.00 | 100.00 | 90.00 | 94.74 |
| 14 | 68 | 10 | 2 | 85.00 | 97.14 | 87.18 | 91.89 | 78 | 0 | 0 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 |
| 15 | 35 | 3 | 0 | 92.11 | 100.00 | 92.11 | 95.89 | 38 | 0 | 0 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 |
| 16 | 30 | 6 | 0 | 83.33 | 100.00 | 83.33 | 90.91 | 36 | 4 | 0 | 90.00 | 100.00 | 90.00 | 94.74 |
| 17 | 34 | 3 | 1 | 89.47 | 97.14 | 91.89 | 94.44 | 37 | 0 | 0 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
a Subjects had previously run up a two-story staircase.
Pedometer test results.
| Number of Steps | Steps Detected | Error (%) |
|---|---|---|
| 200 | 188 | 6 |
| 200 | 178 | 11 |
| 200 | 206 | 3 |
| 200 | 196 | 2 |
| 100 | 83 | 17 |
| 100 | 98 | 2 |
| 100 | 100 | 0 |
| 50 | 36 | 28 |
| 50 | 54 | 8 |
| 50 | 48 | 4 |
| 20 | 14 | 30 |
| 20 | 16 | 20 |
| 20 | 16 | 20 |
| 20 | 20 | 0 |
|
|
|
Power consumption summary for the presented system.
| Consumption (mA) | ||
|---|---|---|
| Device | Sleep Mode | Active Mode |
| CPU@24MHz | 0.03 | 9 |
| Bluetooth | 0.002 | 0.21 |
| INA333 | 0.05 | 0.05 |
| PSoC modules | 0 | 12 |
| MPU6050 | 0 | 0.5 |
| PPG sensor LEDs | 0 | 20 |
| PPG sensor photodiode | 0 | 0.0012 |
|
|
|
|