Peter Gamma (Physiologist & Director) Meditation Research Institute Switzerland (MRIS)

                                                                         Table of Contents

What are the alternatives to consumer grade heart rate monitors for scientists?

Posted bypg@petergamma.org 1 Comment on What are the alternatives to consumer grade heart rate monitors for scientists?

Last Updated on August 16, 2023 by pg@petergamma.org

For cardiologists in the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio 3 lead ECG devices are gold standard for HR measurements:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6732081/

Instead of testing the accuracy of 100 smartwatches and no one confirms this data, why not to choose a 3 lead ECG device by ourselves which is not in doubt about its accuracy? The most affordable device we know which fullfills this requirements is the TA 220 from iWorx:

https://www.ebay.ch/itm/185245471492

It has been used in many scientific papers which are listed at iWorx:

10.12 iWorx IX-TA-220 as a well established 3-lead (or more) ECG device with has been used in many scientific papers as a reference device for sports sensor validation?

It requires additionally the iWorx ECG toolbox for 1000 USD. Instead of testing 100 smartwatches, we suggest to test the following device and compare the data to an Adinstruments, Biopac, iWorx or g.tec medical 3 lead ECG devices. Researchers found that OpenBCI Cyton can be used instead of 3 lead ECG devices for their specific application:

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%

Instead of an iWorx ECG toolbox for 1000 USD, we can use the open source Python toolbox HeartPy:

https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=OOhuA6gAAAAJ&hl=de&oi=sra

  • We do not know if this combination has been used for scientific studies before. But it fullfills the requirements for it and we think it is worth testing this device and compare it to ECG devices which are known to be accurate as those from Adinstruments, Biopac, iWorx or g.tec medical with 3 leads.
  • We also do not know if it necessary to study this device further, we already have one paper which confirms its accuracy. But we think it is worth testing it further for other applications.
  • It is also a device which can be developed further by open source developers or by developers who want to build a new device.
  • It is not a device for sporting activities, since ECG devices are known to have problems with ECG motion artifacts at higher speeds. But we think this device is worth testing for all other applications.

With an OpenBCI Cyton board, which can be found starting from around 230 USD on Ebay and HeartPy, we should have a 3 lead ECG device which is as accurate as for instance the iWorx TA 220 with the iWorx ECG toolbox, but costs about 10 % of the iWorx setup, but this accuracy should be confirmed. Is this not better than testing smartwatches for the rest of our lifes without that ever someone confirms our data? And eventually we also manage to handle noisy ECG signals and can convince sports scientists as well from our great device.