| Literature DB >> 32235543 |
Ivan Liu1, Shiguang Ni2, Kaiping Peng1,3.
Abstract
Heart rate variability (HRV) provides essential health information such as the risks of heart attacks and mental disorders. However, inconvenience related to the accurate detection of HRV limits its potential applications. The ubiquitous use of smartphones makes them an excellent choice for regular and portable health monitoring. Following this trend, smartphone photoplethysmography (PPG) has recently garnered prominence; however, the lack of robustness has prevented both researchers and practitioners from embracing this technology. This study aimed to bridge the gap in the literature by developing a novel smartphone PPG quality index (SPQI) that can filter corrupted data. A total of 226 participants joined the study, and results from 1343 samples were used to validate the proposed sinusoidal function-based model. In both the correlation coefficient and Bland-Altman analyses, the agreement between HRV measurements generated by both the smartphone PPG and the reference electrocardiogram improved when data were filtered through the SPQI. Our results support not only the proposed approach but also the general value of using smartphone PPG in HRV analysis.Entities:
Keywords: heart rate variability; pulse waveform; signal quality index; smartphone photoplethysmography
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32235543 PMCID: PMC7181214 DOI: 10.3390/s20071923
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Steps taken to convert raw signals to segmented and normalized pulse waveform.
Figure 2(a) Illustration of two frames of the video of a left fingertip captured using a smartphone camera (Mi 8 SE, Xiaomi, China). The frame captured during the systole phase is darker and converted to a larger value by photoplethysmography (PPG); the frame captured during the diastole phase is lighter and converted to a smaller value by PPG. (b) Illustration of using the sum of the four sinusoidal functions to fit the collected samples from a 19-year-old female. (c) Illustration of five types of fiducial points (Peak, Valley, Tangent, maximum first derivative (M1D), and maximum secondary derivative (M2D)) determined with both raw data points (blue) and the fitted model (orange).
Definitions of time-domain and frequency-domain heart rate variability (HRV) measurements.
| HRV Measures | Definition |
|---|---|
|
| |
| | Standard deviation of the average normal-to-normal (NN) intervals |
| | Percentage of successive NN intervals that differ by more than 50 ms |
| | Root mean square of successive NN interval differences |
|
| |
| | Absolute power of the high-frequency band (0.15–0.4 Hz) |
| | Absolute power of the low-frequency band (0.04–0.15 Hz) |
| | Absolute power of the very-low frequency band (0.003–0.04 Hz) |
| | Absolute power of the ultra-low frequency band (≤0.003 Hz) |
| | Log-transformed HF |
| | Log-transformed LF |
| | Log-transformed ratio of LF to HF |
Definitions of fiducial point detection techniques (FPDTs).
| FPDT | Fiducial Point Definition |
|---|---|
|
| The maximum point in each BBI. |
|
| The minimum point in each BBI. |
|
| The maximum point of the first derivative in each BBI. |
|
| The maximum point of the second derivative in each BBI. |
|
| The point where the tangent line from the M1D intersects the horizontal line from the Valley. The first derivatives of a discrete data set are determined by the difference function approximation. |
Correlation coefficients between the results generated by smartphone PPG and ECG.
| Threshold | FPDT | rMSSD | pNN50 | SDNN | log HF | log LF | Avg. (FPDT) | Avg. (SPQI) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Peak | 0.520 | 0.652 | 0.692 | 0.639 | 0.607 | 0.622 | 0.669 |
| Valley | 0.608 | 0.731 | 0.791 | 0.758 | 0.741 | 0.726 | ||
| M1D | 0.596 | 0.675 | 0.823 | 0.790 | 0.807 | 0.738 | ||
| M2D | 0.290 | 0.559 | 0.489 | 0.549 | 0.475 | 0.472 | ||
| Tangent | 0.615 | 0.752 | 0.864 | 0.843 | 0.858 | 0.786 | ||
|
| Peak | 0.604 | 0.715 | 0.786 | 0.699 | 0.678 | 0.696 | 0.758 |
| Valley | 0.702 | 0.834 | 0.879 | 0.844 | 0.842 | 0.820 | ||
| M1D | 0.705 | 0.777 | 0.915 | 0.846 | 0.882 | 0.825 | ||
| M2D | 0.393 | 0.665 | 0.626 | 0.629 | 0.536 | 0.570 | ||
| Tangent | 0.756 | 0.848 | 0.947 | 0.900 | 0.936 | 0.877 | ||
|
| Peak | 0.689 | 0.768 | 0.847 | 0.799 | 0.749 | 0.770 | 0.843 |
| Valley | 0.898 | 0.911 | 0.967 | 0.914 | 0.934 | 0.925 | ||
| M1D | 0.795 | 0.851 | 0.943 | 0.881 | 0.892 | 0.872 | ||
| M2D | 0.565 | 0.800 | 0.802 | 0.762 | 0.632 | 0.712 | ||
| Tangent | 0.879 | 0.923 | 0.974 | 0.939 | 0.954 | 0.934 | ||
|
| ||||||||
Figure 3Scatter plot and correlation coefficients of smartphone PPG (with Tangent) and the reference ECG for the HRV measurements.
Number of valid samples filtered by different smartphone PPG quality index (SPQI) levels.
| Threshold | FPDT | rMSSD | pNN50 | SDNN | log HF | log LF | Avg. (FPDT) | Avg. (SPQI) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Peak | 1283 | 1331 | 1276 | 1226 | 1257 | 1274.6 | 1263 |
| Valley | 1258 | 1329 | 1269 | 1245 | 1255 | 1271.2 | ||
| M1D | 1233 | 1330 | 1276 | 1250 | 1262 | 1270.2 | ||
| M2D | 1227 | 1321 | 1204 | 1189 | 1223 | 1232.8 | ||
| Tangent | 1250 | 1325 | 1274 | 1236 | 1246 | 1266.2 | ||
|
| Peak | 1067 | 1087 | 1075 | 1049 | 1071 | 1069.8 | 1060 |
| Valley | 1062 | 1083 | 1073 | 1056 | 1066 | 1068.0 | ||
| M1D | 1052 | 1085 | 1067 | 1054 | 1068 | 1065.2 | ||
| M2D | 1006 | 1078 | 1012 | 1032 | 1057 | 1037.0 | ||
| Tangent | 1046 | 1081 | 1065 | 1053 | 1064 | 1061.8 | ||
|
| Peak | 565 | 550 | 566 | 558 | 565 | 560.8 | 557 |
| Valley | 563 | 548 | 567 | 562 | 562 | 560.4 | ||
| M1D | 561 | 545 | 564 | 555 | 560 | 557.0 | ||
| M2D | 542 | 546 | 553 | 548 | 560 | 549.8 | ||
| Tangent | 562 | 548 | 564 | 557 | 563 | 558.8 |
Bland–Altman ratios between the results generated by smartphone PPG and ECG.
| Threshold | FPDT | rMSSD | pNN50 | SDNN | Log HF | Log LF |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Peak | 0.694 | 0.888 | 0.443 | 0.232 | 0.268 |
| Valley | 0.552 | 0.813 | 0.344 | 0.199 * | 0.215 | |
| M1D | 0.539 | 0.833 | 0.312 | 0.186 * | 0.181 * | |
| M2D | 0.848 | 0.940 | 0.621 | 0.256 | 0.315 | |
| Tangent | 0.677 | 0.905 | 0.287 | 0.166 * | 0.156 * | |
|
| Peak | 0.581 | 0.798 | 0.351 | 0.214 | 0.241 |
| Valley | 0.451 | 0.660 | 0.262 | 0.164 * | 0.165 * | |
| M1D | 0.433 | 0.701 | 0.220 | 0.164 * | 0.141 * | |
| M2D | 0.653 | 0.808 | 0.455 | 0.233 | 0.291 | |
| Tangent | 0.469 | 0.708 | 0.177 * | 0.134 * | 0.105 * | |
|
| Peak | 0.514 | 0.737 | 0.283 | 0.180 * | 0.217 |
| Valley | 0.297 | 0.547 | 0.144 * | 0.129 * | 0.108 * | |
| M1D | 0.367 | 0.615 | 0.179 * | 0.150 * | 0.136 * | |
| M2D | 0.504 | 0.672 | 0.308 | 0.195 * | 0.257 | |
| Tangent | 0.325 | 0.529 | 0.123 * | 0.108 * | 0.092 * | |
|
| ||||||
Figure 4Bland–Altman plot and BAR smartphone PPG (with Tangent) and reference ECG data for each HRV measure.
Figure 5Trade-off between the number of valid samples and the agreement (BAR or correlation coefficient) of log HF between the smartphone PPG (Tangent) and reference ECG.