Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Concurrent heart rate validity of wearable technology devices during trail running.
Navalta, James W; Montes, Jeffrey; Bodell, Nathaniel G; Salatto, Robert W; Manning, Jacob W; DeBeliso, Mark.
Afiliación
  • Navalta JW; Department of Kinesiology and Nutrition Sciences, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Las Vegas, Nevada, United States of America.
  • Montes J; Department of Kinesiology, Monmouth College, Monmouth, Illinois, United States of America.
  • Bodell NG; Department of Kinesiology, California State University, San Bernadino, San Bernadino, California, United States of America.
  • Salatto RW; Department of Kinesiology and Nutrition Sciences, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Las Vegas, Nevada, United States of America.
  • Manning JW; Department of Kinesiology and Outdoor Recreation, Southern Utah University, Cedar City, Utah, United States of America.
  • DeBeliso M; Department of Kinesiology and Outdoor Recreation, Southern Utah University, Cedar City, Utah, United States of America.
PLoS One ; 15(8): e0238569, 2020.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32866216
ABSTRACT
Validation of heart rate responses in wearable technology devices is generally composed of laboratory-based protocols that are steady state in nature and as a result, high accuracy measures are returned. However, there is a need to understand device validity in applied settings that include varied intensities of exercise. The purpose was to determine concurrent heart rate validity during trail running. Twenty-one healthy participants volunteered (female n = 10, [mean (SD)] age = 31 [11] years, height = 173.0 [7] cm, mass = 75.6 [13] kg). Participants were outfitted with wearable technology devices (Garmin Fenix 5 wristwatch, Jabra Elite Sport earbuds, Motiv ring, Scosche Rhythm+ forearm band, Suunto Spartan Sport watch with accompanying chest strap) and completed a self-paced 3.22 km trail run while concurrently wearing a criterion heart rate strap (Polar H7 heart rate monitor). The trail runs were out-and-back with the first 1.61 km in an uphill direction, and the 1.61 return being downhill in nature. Validity was determined through three

methods:

Mean Absolute Percent Error (MAPE), Bland-Altman Limits of Agreement (LOA), and Lin's Concordance Coefficient (rC). Validity measures overall are as follows Garmin Fenix 5 (MAPE = 13%, LOA = -32 to 162, rC = 0.32), Jabra Elite Sport (MAPE = 23%, LOA = -464 to 503, rC = 0.38), Motiv ring (MAPE = 16%, LOA = -52 to 96, rC = 0.29), Scosche Rhythm+ (MAPE = 6%, LOA = -114 to 120, rC = 0.79), Suunto Spartan Sport (MAPE = 2%, LOA = -62 to 61, rC = 0.96). All photoplethysmography-based (PPG) devices displayed poor heart rate agreement during variable intensity trail running. Until technological advances occur in PPG-based devices allowing for acceptable agreement, heart rate in outdoor environments should be obtained using an ECG-based chest strap that can be connected to a wristwatch or other comparable receiver.
Asunto(s)

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Carrera / Tecnología / Determinación de la Frecuencia Cardíaca / Frecuencia Cardíaca Límite: Adult / Female / Humans / Male Idioma: En Revista: PLoS One Asunto de la revista: CIENCIA / MEDICINA Año: 2020 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Estados Unidos

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Carrera / Tecnología / Determinación de la Frecuencia Cardíaca / Frecuencia Cardíaca Límite: Adult / Female / Humans / Male Idioma: En Revista: PLoS One Asunto de la revista: CIENCIA / MEDICINA Año: 2020 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Estados Unidos
...