Last Updated on July 7, 2022 by pg@petergamma.org
Rob ter Horst PhD. published a review about the Polar OH10 and Holder ECG accuracy:
For us, the Polar H10 is not a suitable heart rate monitor device, since whe do 24 * 7 long-term heart rate studies. Wearing the Polar H10 24 * 7 is not comfortable and reliable for this purpose. The Polar H10 needs to be moistured regularly. If not, the heart rate signal is lost.
It would be highly desirable, that better optical heart rate sensor devices are developed for this purpose, for instance a Polar OH24 with enhanced accuracy which can compete with the Polar H10, Apple watches or laboratory reference devices.
It would also be highly desirable, that Polar increases the accuracy of their non wrist-based optical heart rate sensors generally, so that Polar can compete with the most accurate devices.
It is a pitty, that if someone is looking for a very accurate heart rate sensor device, he has to choose a laboratory device, a Polar H10, or an Apple watch. According to Rob ter Horst, PhD. , Polar OH1 and Verity Sense are not among the most accurate devices on the market anymore. A successor of the Verity Sense with higher accuracy would be highly desirable, which can compete with the most accurate heart rate devices.
The Polar H10 reached 99.6% accuracy against peak detection methods. But should the “Gold Standard reference device” not be the device or method with the highest accuracy? Rob ter Horsts “Gold Standard Reference Device” Polar H10 still has an inaccuracy of 0.4 %.
We suggest to use the most accurate setup which was published in this paper as a “Gold Standard Reference paper”:
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0217288
They used a g.Nautilus device as reference device, and not a Polar H10 as reference device, as Rob ter Horst PhD. did.
g.Nautilus supports motion artifact free ECG as reference ECG device:
Comments are closed.