Accuracy of Wrist-Worn Photoplethysmography Devices at Measuring Heart Rate in the Laboratory and During Free-Living Activities

This study compared heart rate (HR) measurements taken from two wrist-worn devices; the Empatica E4 and the Apple Watch Series 5, to that taken from a Polar H10 chest strap. Ten healthy adult volunteers took part in a laboratory validation study and performed a treadmill exercise protocol. A single-subject validity study was also conducted to evaluate the accuracy of continuous HR measurements obtained during free-living activities. The participant wore both wrist devices, as well as the Polar H10 for 12-hours, as she continued her habitual daily activities. The key findings of the laboratory study were that the Apple Watch was accurate at assessing HR compared to the Polar H10 with Mean Absolute Percentage Error (MAPE) values < 5% during treadmill exercise. The accuracy of the E4 however was generally poor with MAPE values > 15%. Findings from the single-subject validity study indicate that the Apple Watch produces accurate measurements of HR, whereas the E4 device overestimated HR, except for during the more strenuous activities undertaken where HR was underestimated.Clinical Relevance— The Apple Watch has acceptable accuracy in measuring HR during treadmill exercise and during free-living activities in healthy adult volunteers.

[1]  Grant Abt,et al.  The validity and inter-device variability of the Apple Watch™ for measuring maximal heart rate , 2018, Journal of sports sciences.

[2]  Justin D. Smith,et al.  Single-case experimental designs: a systematic review of published research and current standards. , 2012, Psychological methods.

[3]  Robert Wang,et al.  Accuracy of wearable heart rate monitors in cardiac rehabilitation. , 2019, Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy.

[4]  T. Fitzpatrick The validity and practicality of sun-reactive skin types I through VI. , 1988, Archives of dermatology.

[5]  Oonagh M. Giggins,et al.  Measurement of Heart Rate Using the Polar OH1 and Fitbit Charge 3 Wearable Devices in Healthy Adults During Light, Moderate, Vigorous, and Sprint-Based Exercise: Validation Study , 2020, JMIR mHealth and uHealth.

[6]  D. Altman,et al.  STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT , 1986, The Lancet.

[7]  Gabriele B. Papini,et al.  Methodological Shortcomings of Wrist-Worn Heart Rate Monitors Validations , 2018, Journal of medical Internet research.

[8]  W. Kibbe,et al.  Investigating sources of inaccuracy in wearable optical heart rate sensors , 2020, npj Digital Medicine.

[9]  Michael W. Beets,et al.  Validity of Wrist-Worn photoplethysmography devices to measure heart rate: A systematic review and meta-analysis , 2020, Journal of sports sciences.

[10]  Nicholas B Allen,et al.  Accuracy of Consumer Wearable Heart Rate Measurement During an Ecologically Valid 24-Hour Period: Intraindividual Validation Study , 2019, JMIR mHealth and uHealth.

[11]  Kaigang Li,et al.  Heart rate measures from the Apple Watch, Fitbit Charge HR 2, and electrocardiogram across different exercise intensities , 2019, Journal of sports sciences.

[12]  N. Schork,et al.  The n-of-1 clinical trial: the ultimate strategy for individualizing medicine? , 2011, Personalized medicine.

[13]  Julie B. Wang,et al.  Wearable Sensor/Device (Fitbit One) and SMS Text-Messaging Prompts to Increase Physical Activity in Overweight and Obese Adults: A Randomized Controlled Trial. , 2015, Telemedicine journal and e-health : the official journal of the American Telemedicine Association.

[14]  Grant Abt,et al.  Validity and Reliability of the Apple Watch for Measuring Heart Rate During Exercise , 2017, Sports Medicine International Open.

[15]  Silvia Santini,et al.  Evaluating the accuracy of heart rate sensors based on photoplethysmography for in-the-wild analysis , 2019, PervasiveHealth.

[16]  D. Hollander,et al.  Validity of Wearable Activity Monitors during Cycling and Resistance Exercise , 2017, Medicine and science in sports and exercise.