Comparisons in heart rate readings between the Bioconnected wireless exercise earpiece and a Polar T31-Coded Chest Strap during a GXT

Abstract

Purpose. The advent of mobile technology has provided a convenient method of measuring heart rate in clinical settings and athletic training with limited support. Therefore the purpose of this research was to evaluate the validity of an earpiece HR monitoring device against a previously validated chest strap HR monitoring device. Method. A convenient sample of college students (n=15), performing a modified Bruce protocol, provided 25 data samples. Heart rates obtained from both the Bioconnected wireless exercise earpieces and a Polar T31-Coded Chest Strap where compared by correlation and coefficient. The Bioconnected wireless exercise earpieces were considered to be valid if the correlation between the recorded heart rate of the Bioconnected device and the corresponding heart rate Polar T31-Coded Chest Strap measurement was r ≥0.90. Results. Five samples were corrupted due to displacement of chest strap (n=3) and dislodgement of earpiece (n=2) during testing, as such data from those tests were excluded from the correlation analysis. The remaining 20 data samples provided mean totals of 521±117 HR data points (earpiece) and 517±118 HR data points (chest strap). A strong correlation (r=0.97) between the Bioconnected wireless exercise earpieces and a Polar T31-Coded Chest Strap. Conclusions. The results of this study show that the HR measurements of the Bioconnected wireless exercise earpieces and the Polar Chest Strap are highly correlated, supporting the Bioconnected wireless exercise earpieces in monitoring HR during a GXT on a treadmill in healthy adults. However, as exercise transitioned from walking to jogging, at times, both devices had problems with displacement and loss of HR signal, suggesting the need for improved

Hearables: New Perspectives and Pitfalls of In-Ear Devices for Physiological Monitoring. A Scoping Review

“…The earbud displayed higher performance than the wrist-watch in all exercise sessions but especially in the high-intensity session, where the wristwatch exhibited poor performance due to substantial arm motion. High agreement between a commercial wireless exercise earpiece (connected via Bluetooth with a smartphone) and a reference chest strap (r 2 = 0.94) was reported by Higgins et al during maximal graded exercise on a treadmill (Higgins et al, 2018). However, the authors pointed out occasional displacement problems of both devices when exercise intensity increased.…”

“…A more extensive validation of in-ear devices, including tests during exercise sessions at different intensity levels, was performed in the studies using PPG-based sensors. Four studies evaluated the performance of commercial in-ear devices (Boudreaux et al, 2018 ; Higgins et al, 2018 ; Bunn et al, 2019 ; Passler et al, 2019 ). Bunn et al ( 2019 ) compared the performance of a commercial earbud system and a wrist-watch for PR monitoring with that of a chest strap used as benchmark.…”

A Preliminary Investigation about the Influence of WIMU PROTM Location on Heart Rate Accuracy: A Comparative Study in Cycle Ergometer

“…Among the wide variety of performance indicators, heart rate (HR) is commonly used to evaluate cardiac status [2,3]. Defined as a vital physiological variable, it helps in measuring internal load and prescribing exercise intensities [4,5]. Moreover, coaches need HR data in real-game contexts for decision-making [6].…”

“…This need has led to the development of devices that can provide live data during training and competition [3]. Among the different available options, chest straps have proven validity and reliability and have become the most widely used device for HR measurement [3][4][5].…”