| Literature DB >> 32899540 |
Francesco Scardulla1, Leonardo D'Acquisto1, Raffaele Colombarini1, Sijung Hu2, Salvatore Pasta1, Diego Bellavia3.
Abstract
Heart rate (HR) as an important physiological indicator could properly describe global subject's physical status. Photoplethysmographic (PPG) sensors are catching on in field of wearable sensors, combining the advantages in costs, weight and size. Nevertheless, accuracy in HR readings is unreliable specifically during physical activity. Among several identified sources that affect PPG recording, contact pressure (CP) between the PPG sensor and skin greatly influences the signals.Entities:
Keywords: PPG accuracy; PPG sensor; contact force; contact pressure; heart rate (HR); heart rate reliability; heart rate signal; photoplethysmography (PPG); wearables
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32899540 PMCID: PMC7570982 DOI: 10.3390/s20185052
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Qualitative representation of the variation of the alternating component (AC) signal for different contact pressures. With an increasing contact pressure, the amplitude initially increases up to a maximum and then it starts decreasing.
Figure 2Lateral view of the prototypal measurement device configuration (A) and coupling elements for the load transmission (B).
Figure 3Prototypal measurement system in operation.
Figure 4Schematic block diagram of the signal conditioning.
Figure 5Filtered and synchronized PPG (continuous line) and ECG (dashed line) acquisitions at each physical activity and for every contact pressure (CP), to evaluate qualitatively the correlations between ECG and PPG.
Pearson correlation coefficient of ECG-HR and PPG-HR at each physical activity rate and for each contact pressure (i.e., CP1 = 12 mmHg, CP2 = 33 mmHg and CP3 = 54 mmHg).
| Pearson Correlation Coefficient | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Exercise Rate | CP1 | CP2 | CP3 |
| 90 bpm | 0.56 | 0.93 | 0.95 |
| 120 bpm | 0.32 | 0.89 | 0.94 |
| 140 bpm | 0.28 | 0.76 | 0.81 |
Mean average percentage error (MAPE) of ECG-HR and PPG-HR at each physical activity rate and for each contact pressure (i.e., CP1 = 12 mmHg, CP2 = 33 mmHg and CP3 = 54 mmHg).
| MAPE (σ) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Exercise Rate | CP1 | CP2 | CP3 |
| 90 bpm | 8.9% (4.4) | 2.4% (2.7) | 2.4% (3.2) |
| 120 bpm | 10.3% (4.9) | 3.5% (3.5) | 2.7% (3.0) |
| 140 bpm | 11.8% (6.2) | 4.6% (5.3) | 3.8% (3.8) |
Figure 6Bland Altman plot of PPG and ECG acquisition at each physical activity and for every CP, to better evaluate the correlation between ECG and PPG acquisitions.
Number of subjects (n) which presented the individual optimal contact pressure (Optimal CP) at every physical activity intensity.
| Lowest Individual MAPE | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Exercise Rate | CP1 | CP2 | CP3 |
| 90 bpm | n = 0 | n = 9 | n = 8 |
| 120 bpm | n = 1 | n = 4 | n = 12 |
| 140 bpm | n = 0 | n = 6 | n = 11 |
Figure 7Bland Altman plot between ECG and the best individual subset of PPG acquisitions.
Bland Altman and MAPE comparison between the best individual subset and whole dataset at CP3 (i.e., 54 mmHg).
| Bland–Altman | MAPE | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Exercise Rate | CP3 | Optimal CP | CP3 | Optimal CP |
| 90 bpm | −0.3 (±9.4) | −0.4 (±5.0) | 2.4% (3.2) | 1.3% (1.9) |
| 120 bpm | −1.0 (±10.0) | −0.9 (±8.0) | 2.7% (3.0) | 2.1% (2.5) |
| 140 bpm | 1.3 (±16.2) | 0.3 (±10.7) | 3.8% (3.8) | 2.3% (2.6) |