Is Peter H. Charton’s Respiratory Rate Estimation more accurate than a Garmin watch (revisited)?

Last Updated on March 9, 2024 by pg@petergamma.org

Peter Gamma from www.peteramma.org is very impressed about Peter H. Charton’s Respiratory Rate Estimation project:

http://peterhcharlton.github.io/RRest/

He currently uses a Garmin Fenix 6 for breath meditation. From Peter H. Charlton, Biomedical Engineer specialising in signal processing for wearables:

https://www.linkedin.com/in/peterhcharlton/?originalSubdomain=uk

Who worked for the University of Oxford, and has conducted research at King’s College London, and presently, at the University of Cambridge, he has learned that normal physiolological respiration rate is between 12 – 20 breath per minute. His Garmin Fenix 6 is accurate at 12 breath per minute, but not at higher breath rates. But Peter Gamma from www.petergamma.org still does not know if the Respiratory Rate Estimation based on ECG can be used for clinical and research applications to write papers at a higher level than Sensor (Basel). After a literature search the best paper about Respiratory Rate Estimation was one which was perfomed with an Iwork TA 220 ECG device published in Sensors Basel. Are there any papers at a higher level such Nature and Science where Respiratory Rate Estimation has been used? Peter Gamma from www.petergamma.org find no such Nature or Science papers among Peter H. Charton’s paper:

https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=BJjD81oAAAAJ&hl=de&oi=ao

There is currently one device which is interesting for Peter Gamma from www.petergamma.org, and that is published in Nature:

«Wearable radio-frequency sensing of respiratory rate, respiratory volume, and heart rate»

which was publised Published: 28 July 2020:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41746-020-0307-6

The device which looks like this:

But does this device not also first be developed further for daily use?