| Literature DB >> 32429383 |
Michał Meina1, Ewa Ratajczak1,2,3, Maria Sadowska2, Krzysztof Rykaczewski3, Joanna Dreszer2, Bibianna Bałaj2, Stanisław Biedugnis4, Wojciech Węgrzyński5, Adam Krasuski4.
Abstract
Chronic stress is the main cause of health problems in high-risk jobs. Wearable sensors can become an ecologically valid method of stress level assessment in real-life applications. We sought to determine a non-invasive technique for objective stress monitoring. Data were collected from firefighters during 24-h shifts using sensor belts equipped with a dry-lead electrocardiograph (ECG) and a three-axial accelerometer. Levels of stress experienced during fire incidents were evaluated via a brief self-assessment questionnaire. Types of physical activity were distinguished basing on accelerometer readings, and heart rate variability (HRV) time series were segmented accordingly into corresponding fragments. Those segments were classified as stress/no-stress conditions. Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) analysis showed true positive classification as stress condition for 15% of incidents (while maintaining almost zero False Positive Rate), which parallels the amount of truly stressful incidents reported in the questionnaires. These results show a firm correspondence between the perceived stress level and physiological data. Psychophysiological measurements are reliable indicators of stress even in ecological settings and appear promising for chronic stress monitoring in high-risk jobs, such as firefighting.Entities:
Keywords: HRV; accelerometry; firefighters; monitoring; psychophysiology; stress
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32429383 PMCID: PMC7285091 DOI: 10.3390/s20102834
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1A typical electrocardiograph (ECG) signal showing the RR interval.
Description and explanation of abbreviations of the heart rate variability (HRV) parameters applied in this study. Hereafter, NN refers to the time elapsed between consecutive ’normal-to-normal’ beats of the heart, equivalent to R-R, that is, peak-to-peak period between the R-waves on the ECG.
| HRV Index | Description |
|---|---|
| SDNN | Standard deviation (SD) of the NN (R-R) inter-beat intervals |
| SDANN | Standard deviation of averaged over 5-minute periods NN (R-R) intervals |
| SDNNIDX | Mean value index (IDX) of SDNN |
| pNN50 | Proportion of the adjacent (successive) NN (R-R) intervals greater than 50 ms |
| SDSD | Standard deviation of the successive differences between the adjacent NN (RR) intervals |
| rMSSD | Root mean square differences between the successive NN (R-R) intervals |
| IRRR | Length of the interval between the first and the third quantile of the ΔRR time series |
| MADRR | Median of the absolute values of the successive differences between the adjacent NN (R-R) intervals |
| TINN | Triangular interpolation of the NN (R-R) interval histogram. |
| HRVi | Index reflecting the slowing down of the heart |
| SD1 | Dispersion of the points along the minor axis of the Pointcare plot (SD of the short-term R-R interval variability) |
| SD2 | Dispersion of the points along the major axis of the Pointcare plot (SD of the long-term R-R interval variability) |
| Correlation dimension and scaling exponent alpha, non-linear dynamics measures of time series. |
Results of self-assessment of stress experienced upon emergency events. Mean score and SD calculated for each position of the questionnaire and for the total score.
| No. | Question a | Mean | SD |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | To what degree was the situation stressful to you? | 1.91 | 0.75 |
| 2. | To what degree was the situation not a challenge to you? | 3.56 | 1.03 |
| 3. | To what degree was the action routine? | 3.60 | 1.20 |
| 4. | To what degree was the situation a threat to your life? | 1.47 | 0.74 |
| 5. | Did the situation endanger civilians in your surroundings? | 1.84 | 1.15 |
| 6. | To what degree did the situation endanger other firefighters involved in the action? | 1.44 | 0.73 |
| 7. | To what degree was the situation not a threat? | 3.77 | 1.25 |
| 8. | Assess the amount of effort you had to undertake in this situation | 2.16 | 0.92 |
| 9. | Was your involvement crucial to the action? | 2.81 | 1.16 |
| 10. | Assess how satisfied you are with your actions during the incident | 3.77 | 0.81 |
| 11. | Assess how satisfied you are with your co-operation with other participants throughout the action | 4.12 | 0.66 |
| 12. | In a few short sentences, characterise the situation and your feelings about it (state the type of action, equipment used, difficulties encountered in action, victims/injured parties [people, animals and possessions], and any information that seems important to you) b | ||
| Total score | 22.81 | 5.36 |
a Rated on 5-point Likert-type scale: ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5) b Open question.
Figure 2Exemplary data from a 24 h recording retrieved from one of the participants. Consecutive graphs (marked by subsequent letters of the alphabet) correspond to the same timeline. (a) depicts clusters of motion time series. Motion data consists of three-axial acceleration measurements, and acceleration variance, presented in (b,c) respectively. (d) illustrates changes in HRV (red line, left axis) and respiration rate (blue line, right axis), while (e) shows fluctuations in body temperature.
Results of Welch’s t-test significance and values of compared means (with confidence intervals) for ’incident’ vs. ’non-incident’ episodes calculated for various HRV parameters within motion clusters that contained a sufficient number of ’incident’ events. Asterisks indicate statistically significant results: * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.
| ClusterID (No. of Incident/Non-Incident Episodes) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 (25/166) | 2 (3/48) | 6 (11/151) | 8 (5/126) | |
| SDNN (ms) | ||||
| incident | 117.92 ± 41.52 | 83.47 ± 35.30 | 112.12 ± 50.22 | 98.96 ± 27.27 |
| non-incident | 128.61 ± 65.50 | 107.45 ± 48.97 | 134.62 ± 64.33 | 27.27 ± 56.94 |
| SDNNIDX (ms) | ||||
| incident | 93.52 ± 46.06 | 74.73 ± 43.20 | 99.24 ± 50.84 | 76.68 ± 19.02 |
| non-incident | 104.52 ± 59.65 | 95.65 ± 47.51 | 110.80 ± 60.70 | 19.02 ± 54.30 |
| pNN50 (%) | ||||
| incident | 18.61 ± 13.89 | 11.88 ± 11.45 | 15.92 ± 14.29 | 13.99 ± 9.53 |
| non-incident | 23.30 ± 16.05 | 22.21 ± 14.17 | 26.36 ± 16.81 | 9.53 ± 16.58 |
| SDSD (ms) | ||||
| incident | 65.00 ± 44.10 | 61.43 ± 47.03 | 60.93 ± 47.39 | 44.16 ± 16.89 |
| non-incident | 78.71 ± 58.71 | 81.26 ± 47.61 | 92.33 ± 61.78 | 16.89 ± 48.14 |
| rMSSD (ms) | ||||
| incident | 64.98 ± 44.08 | 61.41 ± 47.01 | 60.92 ± 47.37 | 44.15 ± 16.88 |
| non-incident | 78.65 ± 58.54 | 81.17 ± 47.55 | 92.22 ± 61.52 | 16.88 ± 48.12 |
| IRRR (ms) | ||||
| incident | 151.52 ± 63.06 | 80.00 ± 37.00 | 154.00 ± 97.90 | 115.00 ± 18.11 |
| non-incident | 168.31 ± 110.14 | 120.23 ± 74.10 | 177.93 ± 117.43 | 18.11 ± 85.11 |
| MADRR (ms) | ||||
| incident | 20.64 ± 12.09 | 14.00 ± 10.00 | 16.27 ± 11.28 | 18.00 ± 8.17 |
| non-incident | 25.16 ± 17.99 | 20.84 ± 12.91 | 26.52 ± 16.03 | 8.17 ± 18.49 |
| TINN (ms) | ||||
| incident | 335.49 ± 98.45 | 214.78 ± 102.79 | 315.20 ± 80.28 | 311.77 ± 23.04 |
| non-incident | 333.28 ± 136.37 | 243.49 ± 105.54 | 306.71 ± 105.84 | 23.04 ± 144.73 |
| HRVi | ||||
| incident | 21.47 ± 6.30 | 13.75 ± 6.58 | 20.17 ± 5.14 | 19.95 ± 1.47 |
| non-incident | 21.33 ± 8.73 | 15.58 ± 6.75 | 19.63 ± 6.77 | 1.47 ± 9.26 |
| SD1 (ms) | ||||
| incident | 45.96 ± 31.18 | 43.43 ± 33.25 | 43.09 ± 33.51 | 31.23 ± 11.94 |
| non-incident | 55.65 ± 41.51 | 57.46 ± 33.66 | 65.29 ± 43.68 | 11.94 ± 34.04 |
| SD2 (ms) | ||||
| incident | 159.42 ± 52.28 | 108.34 ± 41.15 | 151.51 ± 65.12 | 136.26 ± 37.24 |
| non-incident | 172.22 ± 84.50 | 139.49 ± 62.37 | 177.44 ± 82.81 | 37.24 ± 74.53 |
|
| ||||
| incident | 1.44 ± 0.06 | 1.25 ± 0.13 | 1.43 ± 0.04 | 1.46 ± 0.02 |
| non-incident | 1.35 ± 0.33 | 1.28 ± 0.35 | 1.39 ± 0.21 | 0.02 ± 0.15 |
| ScalExp | ||||
| incident | 1.01 ± 0.11 | 1.19 ± 0.22 | 1.07 ± 0.20 | 1.05 ± 0.19 |
| non-incident | 0.91 ± 0.21 | 0.86 ± 0.29 | 0.92 ± 0.25 | 0.19 ± 0.23 |
Figure 3Classification for ’incident’ detection based on HRV parameters, performed on 5 different sets of R-R epochs delineated via accelerometer data using 5 different clustering parameters ( and 30).