Accuracy of the wearable activity tracker Garmin Forerunner 235 for the assessment of heart rate during rest and activity

Støve, Morten Pallisgaard; Haucke, Emil; Nymann, Maria Lysbeck; Sigurdsson, Tordur; Larsen, Birgit Tine

doi:10.1080/02640414.2018.1535563

Cited by 45 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A total of 29 studies (266 comparisons) examined wearable device heart rate measurements compared with reference standard criterion measures, including electrocardiography [ 22 , 23 , 38 - 40 , 43 , 44 , 54 , 61 , 62 , 67 - 70 , 142 , 162 , 176 ], Polar brand chest straps [ 20 , 21 , 24 - 28 , 58 , 63 , 71 , 163 ], and pulse oximetry [ 66 ], in controlled settings (a detailed list of the criterion measures used is presented in Multimedia Appendix 6 ). Of these, 24 studies recruited healthy adults (mean age 29.8 years, SD 10.5 years), four studies recruited adults living with limited mobility/chronic diseases (mean age 59.6 years, SD 9.0 years), and one study recruited children undergoing surgery (mean age 8.2 years, SD 3.1 years).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reliability and Validity of Commercially Available Wearable Devices for Measuring Steps, Energy Expenditure, and Heart Rate: Systematic Review

Fuller

Colwell

Low

et al. 2020

JMIR Mhealth Uhealth

413

278

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Consumer-wearable activity trackers are small electronic devices that record fitness and health-related measures. Objective The purpose of this systematic review was to examine the validity and reliability of commercial wearables in measuring step count, heart rate, and energy expenditure. Methods We identified devices to be included in the review. Database searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase, and SPORTDiscus, and only articles published in the English language up to May 2019 were considered. Studies were excluded if they did not identify the device used and if they did not examine the validity or reliability of the device. Studies involving the general population and all special populations were included. We operationalized validity as criterion validity (as compared with other measures) and construct validity (degree to which the device is measuring what it claims). Reliability measures focused on intradevice and interdevice reliability. Results We included 158 publications examining nine different commercial wearable device brands. Fitbit was by far the most studied brand. In laboratory-based settings, Fitbit, Apple Watch, and Samsung appeared to measure steps accurately. Heart rate measurement was more variable, with Apple Watch and Garmin being the most accurate and Fitbit tending toward underestimation. For energy expenditure, no brand was accurate. We also examined validity between devices within a specific brand. Conclusions Commercial wearable devices are accurate for measuring steps and heart rate in laboratory-based settings, but this varies by the manufacturer and device type. Devices are constantly being upgraded and redesigned to new models, suggesting the need for more current reviews and research.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reliability and Validity of Commercially Available Wearable Devices for Measuring Steps, Energy Expenditure, and Heart Rate: Systematic Review

Fuller

Colwell

Low

et al. 2020

JMIR Mhealth Uhealth

413

278

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In comparison to the in-ear pulse rate PPG devices, considerably more wrist-worn pulse rate devices were validated [7,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53]. Both fitness trackers and sports watches were tested under different exercise conditions.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

In-Ear Pulse Rate Measurement: A Valid Alternative to Heart Rate Derived from Electrocardiography?

Passler

Müller

Senner

2019

Sensors

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Heart rate measurement has become one of the most widely used methods of monitoring the intensity of physical activity. The purpose of this study was to assess whether in-ear photoplethysmographic (PPG) pulse rate (PR) measurement devices represent a valid alternative to heart rate derived from electrocardiography (ECG), which is considered a gold standard. Twenty subjects (6 women, 14 men) completed one trial of graded cycling under laboratory conditions. In the trial, PR was recorded by two commercially available in-ear devices, the Dash Pro and the Cosinuss°One. They were compared to HR measured by a Bodyguard2 ECG. Validity of the in-ear PR measurement devices was tested by ANOVA, mean absolute percentage errors (MAPE), intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC), and Bland–Altman plots. Both devices achieved a MAPE ≤5%. Despite excellent to good levels of agreement, Bland–Altman plots showed that both in-ear devices tend to slightly underestimate the ECG’s HR values. It may be concluded that in-ear PPG PR measurement is a promising technique that shows accurate but imprecise results under controlled conditions. However, PPG PR measurement in the ear is sensitive to motion artefacts. Thus, accuracy and precision of the measured PR depend highly on measurement site, stress situation, and exercise.

show abstract

“…Twenty-one healthy participants volunteered for this study (female n = 10, not presenting with cardiovascular, metabolic, or renal disease; no signs or symptoms suggestive of cardiovascular, metabolic, or renal disease) [ 32 ]. Heart rate validity literature has returned large effect sizes (0.91 to 0.95) [ 4 , 18 ] however, to be conservative a moderate effect size (0.5) was utilized to determine that a total sample size of 21 would be sufficient. Participant descriptive characteristics included the following (mean±SD): age = 31±11 years, height = 173.0±6.9 cm, mass = 75.6±12.9 kg.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Wearable technology devices that return heart rate include smart bras [ 7 ], earbuds [ 8 , 9 ] and sensors placed around the forearm [ 10 , 11 ] or wrist [ 12 , 13 ]. Several investigations have utilized treadmill running protocols when evaluating the agreement of heart rate compared with electrocardiogram (ECG) [ 4 , 11 , 14 , 15 ] or chest strap criterion measures [ 8 , 10 , 16 – 18 ], which will be taken as validity in the current investigation. These running protocols have utilized 1.5-minute [ 11 ], 3-minute [ 14 , 15 , 18 , 19 ], 4-minute [ 17 ], 5-minute [ 4 , 8 , 10 ], and 6-minute time frames [ 16 ] with a constant speed.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Concurrent heart rate validity of wearable technology devices during trail running

Navalta¹,

Montes²,

Bodell³

et al. 2020

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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 (r C ). Validity measures overall are as follows: Garmin Fenix 5 (MAPE = 13%, LOA = -32 to 162, r C = 0.32), Jabra Elite Sport (MAPE = 23%, LOA = -464 to 503, r C = 0.38), Motiv ring (MAPE = 16%, LOA = -52 to 96, r C = 0.29), Scosche Rhythm+ (MAPE = 6%, LOA = -114 to 120, r C = 0.79), Suunto Spartan Sport (MAPE = 2%, LOA = -62 to 61, r C = 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.

show abstract

Accuracy of the wearable activity tracker Garmin Forerunner 235 for the assessment of heart rate during rest and activity

Cited by 45 publications

References 14 publications

Reliability and Validity of Commercially Available Wearable Devices for Measuring Steps, Energy Expenditure, and Heart Rate: Systematic Review

Reliability and Validity of Commercially Available Wearable Devices for Measuring Steps, Energy Expenditure, and Heart Rate: Systematic Review

In-Ear Pulse Rate Measurement: A Valid Alternative to Heart Rate Derived from Electrocardiography?

Concurrent heart rate validity of wearable technology devices during trail running

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About