Criticism about Rob ter Horst’s “Scientist’s Top Picks for best Health and Sports Trackers in 2023”

Last Updated on December 8, 2023 by pg@petergamma.org

Rob ter Horst ‘s Top Picks:

Comments of the MRIS to Rob’s Picks

• The title “best health devices” is controversial. “best health devices” is not a scientifically clearly defined term and we do not know of other scientists who use it. We suggest not to use the term “best health devices”.

• “Scientist’s Top Picks” is not a scientifically clearly defined term and we do not know of other scientists who use it. We suggest not to use the term “Scientist’s Top Picks”
• we only rarely watch Rob’s video, we haven’t watches this one at all.
• The MRIS is only interested in the most accurate “Top Picks” for scientists. These are not tested by Rob for reasons we don’t know.
• The 3 devices shown at the front page of Rob’s devices as 1,2,3 of his choice are not among the most accurate devices.
• Are scientists not interested in devices which deliver data which can be objectively measured and deliver data which are accurate enough to do scientific studies with it with numerical and statical data which can be reproduced and are of interest for other scientists and the whole humanity on the long term?
• The MRIS studies since several years similar devices as Rob ter Horst does and Rob only rarely shows devices which strike us.
• Rob’s Scientist’s Top Picks are controversial as long as there is no scientific basis for his choice published in peer-reviewed scientific papers.

• The peer-review process subjects an author’s scholarly work, research, or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field (peers) and is considered necessary to ensure academic scientific quality.
• Rob often mentioned that his data are only data from one subject, but will there be more?
• How can there be more if he not publishes his testing protocols?
• Does Rob study physiological sensors which have basically been given up by other scientists?
• We miss scientific papers which confirm Rob ter Horst statements, eventually such who choose other protocols. But we do not know of such papers.

We suggest alternatives which might be interesting for scientists and are eventually worth to be discussed: OpenBCI with scientific validation papers & PiEEG

1. Validation paper of OpenBCI Cyton for ECG:

Researchers from the University of Calgary found that a 3-lead ECG device based on the OpenBCI Cyton board can be used for HRV measurements instead of an industry-standard 3 lead ECG device from Adinstruments and costs only about 4%

2. Validation paper of OpenBCI Cyton 16 channel for EEG:

A Novel OpenBCI Framework for EEG-Based Neurophysiological Experiments: a Cyton 16 channel EEG headset & WIFI shield

• The validation paper of OpenBCI Cyton 16 channel for EEG uses the OpenBCI WIFI shield.
• www.OpenBCI.com does not offer a Wifi shield anymore.
• How to find an issue-free OpenBCI WIFI shield can be found in our journal.
• These papers are not published in the year 2023, but we discovered those and therefore promote those in this year.

3. PiEEG

• There are not yet validation papers available from authors which do have no conflict of interest
• We haven’t studied the PiEEG papers of authors which have a conflict of interest yet.
• PiEEG 8 channels is only available in mid 2024.
• PiEEG offers Python software.
• We think that OpenBCI is easier for beginners than PiEEG.
• We think for coders PiEEG is very interesting since the hardware is simpler than the OpenBCI hardware.
• The combination of a multi-sensor EEG hat with a Raspberry Pi single board computer is a device which is very interesting for us personally and we are looking forward to see how PiEEG will develop in the future.
• PiEEG 4 channel starts selling at the end of 2023.

4. Low-cost high-quality treadmills which eventually can be used for medical and research applications

see under the cathegory “treadmill” in our journal.

https://petergamma.org/category/treadmill-calibration/