A COMPARISON STUDY OF THREE DIFFERENT HEART RATE MONITORING DEVICES
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.14456/jsst.2022.18Keywords:
heart rate, Chest Strap Heart Rate Sensor (Polar) , Low-Cost Smart Watch (Watch) , Heart Rate Plus Mobile Application (App)Abstract
Heart rate (HR) monitoring during resting and exercises has been widely used as an indicator of cardiorespiratory or aerobic fitness. Presently, there has been a large increase in the number of wearable devices that use to measure HR such as smart watch and mobile application. With technological advancement, the cost of these devices is reduced. However, some models are still not precise for estimating HR. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to compare and assess validity of three HR monitoring devices; chest strap heart rate sensor (Polar), low-cost smart watch (Watch), and Heart Rate Plus mobile application (App). HR measurement was recorded in 1 minute (average, maximum, and minimum) following recording ranges: (1) resting state, (2) after 15 repetitions of Jumping Jack, (3) after 2 minutes rest, (4) after 15 repetitions of Jumping Jack, (5) after 2 minutes rest. The HR values from 3 instruments were statistically different in every recording range by using Friedman. When evaluated validity of the HR values compared to Polar across all recording ranges, the standardize typical error of estimates were 3.74-79.60 and 0.16-2.09 for Watch and App, respectively. In addition, Bland Altman plot was described a comparison of HR values between Polar and Watch and Polar and App. The difference between Polar and Watch distributed outside the area of the mean difference line (abnormally distributed). The difference between Polar and App distributed in the area of the mean difference line (normally distributed). The percentage difference between Watch and App heart rate values compared to Polar heart rate values is shown in terms of the percentage change. Consequently, this study can provide information to choose the HR measurement. Watch might not be valid for monitoring exercise. App is valid for monitoring resting state, but not portable and easy to use in exercise.
(Journal of Sports Science and Technology 2022; 22 (2): 104-120))
(Received: 11 April 2022, Revised: 17 August 2022, Accepted: 25 August 2022)
Keyword: Heart Rate /Chest Strap Heart Rate Sensor (Polar) / Low-Cost Smart Watch (Watch) /
Heart Rate Plus Mobile Application (App)
*Corresponding Author: Kittichai Tharawadeepimuk
College of Sports Science and Technology, Mahidol University, Nakhon Pathom, Thailand 73170
E-mail: [email protected] Tel. 081-037-6595
References
Seiler S. What is Best Practice for Training Intensity and Duration Distribution in Endurance Athletes? Int Sports Physiol Perform 2010;5:276-91.
Swain DP, Abernathy KS, Smith CS, Lee SJ, Bunn SA. Target heart rates for the development of cardiorespiratory fitness. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1994;26:112-6.
Duking P, Hotho A, Holmberg H, Fuss FK, Sperlich B. Comparison of Non-Invasive Individual Monitoring of the Training and Health of Athletes with Commercially Available Wearable Technologies. Front Physiol 2016;7:71.
International Data Corporation (IDC). Wrist-Worn Wearables Maintain a Strong Growth Trajectory in Q2 2019 [Internet]. 2019 [cited 2021 Dec 16]. Available from: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20190912005263/en/Wrist-Worn-Wearables-Maintain-a-Strong-Growth-Trajectory-in-Q2-2019-According-to-IDC
Allen J. Photoplethysmography and its application in clinical physiological measurement. Physiol Meas 2007;28:R1-R39.
Maeda Y, Sekine M, Tamura T. Relationship Between Measurement Site and Motion Artifacts in Wearable Reflected Photoplethysmography. J Med Syst 2011;35:969-76.
Duking P, Giessing L, Frenkel MO, Koehler K, Holmberg H, Sperlich B. Wrist-Worn Wearables for Monitoring Heart Rate and Energy Expenditure While Sitting or Performing Light-to-Vigorous Physical Activity: Validation Study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2020;8:e16716.
Boudreaux BD, Hebert EP, Hollander DB, Williams BM, Cormier CL, Naquin MR, et al. Validity of Wearable Activity Monitoring during Cycling and Resistance Exercise. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2018;50:624-33.
Speer KE, Semple S, Naumovski N, McKune AJ. Measuring Heart Rate Variability Using Commercially Available Devices in Healthy Children: A Validity and Reliability Study. Eur J Investig Health Psychol Educ 2020;10:390-404.
Hopkins W. Spreadsheets for analysis of validity and reliability. Sportscience 2017;21.
Gilgen-Ammann R, Schweizer T, Wyss T. RR interval signal quality of a heart rate monitor and an ECG Holter at rest and during exercise. Eur J Appl Physiol 2019;119:1525-32.
Allen J. Photoplethysmography and its application in clinical physiological measurement. Physiol Meas 2007;28:R1-39.
El-Hajj C, Kyriacou PA. A review of machine learning techniques in photoplethysmography for the non-invasive cuff-less measurement of blood pressure. Biomed Sig Process Control 2020;58:101870.
Lacome M, Peeters A, Mathieu B, Marrier B, Carling C, Piscione J. Can we use GPS for assessing sprinting performance in rugby sevens? A concurrent validity and between-device reliability study. Biol Sport 2019;36:25-9.
Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Int J Nurs Stud 2010;47:931-6.
Sandberg A, Cider A, Jivegard L, Nordanstig J, Wittboldt S, Back M. Test-retest reliability, agreement, and minimal detectable change in the 6-minute walk test in patients with intermittent claudication. J Vasc Surg 2019;71:197-203.
Giavarina D. Understanding Bland Altman analysis. Biochem Med 2015;25:141-51.
Balsalobre-Fernandez C, Glaister M, Lockey RA. The validity and reliability of an iPhone app for measuring vertical jump performance. J Sports Sci 2015;33:1574-9.
Faigenbaum AD, Bagley J, Boise S, Farrell A, Bates N, Myer GD. Dynamic Balance in Children: Performance Comparison Between Two Testing Devices. Athl Train Sports Health Care 2015;7:160-4.
Bent B, Goldstein BA, Kibbe WA, Dunn JP. Investigating sources of inaccuracy in wearable optical heart rate sensors. NPJ Digit Med 2020;3:18.
Georgiou K, Larentzakis AV, Khamis NN, Alsuhaibani GI, Alaska YA, Giallafos EJ. Can Wearable Devices Accurately Measure Heart Rate Variability? A Systematic Review. Folia Medica 2018;60:7-20.
Allen J, Murray A. Variability of photoplethysmography peripheral pulse measurements at the ears, thumbs and toes. IEEE Proc Sci Measu Technol 2000;147:403-7.
Kamal AR, Harness JB, Irving G, Mearns AJ. Skin photoplethysmography-a review. Comp Meth Programs Biomed 1989;28:257-69.
Boudreaux BD, Hebert EP, Hollander DB, Williams BM, Cormier CL, Naquin MR, et al. Validity of Wearable Activity Monitors during Cycling and Resistance Exercise. Med Sci Sport Exer 2018;50:624-33.
Dooley EE, Golaszewski NM, Bartholomew JB. Estimating Accuracy at Exercise Intensities: A Comparative Study of Self-Monitoring Heart Rate and Physical Activity Wearable Devices. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2017;5:e34.
Thomson EA, Nuss K, Comstock A, Reinwald S, Blake S, Pimentel RE, et al. Heart rate measures from the Apple Watch, Fitbit Charge HR2, and electrocardiogram across different exercise intensities. J Sports Sci 2019;37:1411-9.
Kim MK, Tanaka K, Kim MJ, Matuso T, Endo T, Tomita T, et al. Comparison of epicardial, abdominal and regional fat compartments in response to weight loss. Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis 2009;19:760-6.
Austevoll IM, Gjestad R, Grotle M, Solberg T, Brox JI, Hermansen E, et al. Follow-up score, change score or percentage change score for determining clinical important outcome following surgery? An observational study from the Norwegian registry for Spine surgery evaluating patient reported outcome measures in lumbar spinal stenosis and lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis. BMC Musculoskel Dis 2019;20:31.
