HRV and Stress: A Mixed-Methods Approach for Comparison of Wearable Heart Rate Sensors for Biofeedback

• Main Authors: Muhammad Umair, Niaz Chalabianloo, Corina Sas, Cem Ersoy
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: IEEE 2021-01-01
• Series: IEEE Access
• Subjects: Affective computing; biofeedback; biosensors; HRV; physiological signals; stress
• Online Access: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9326296/

Stress is one of the most significant health problems in today's world. Existing work has used heart rate variability (HRV) to detect stress and provide biofeedback in order to regulate it. There has been a growing interest in using wearable biosensors to measure HRV. Each of these sensors acquires heart rate data using different technologies for various bodily locations, therefore posing a challenge for researchers to decide upon a particular device in a research experiment. Previous work has only compared different sensing devices against a gold standard in terms of data quality, thus overlooking qualitative analysis for the usability and acceptability of such devices. This paper introduces a mixed-methods approach to compare the data quality and user acceptance of the six most common wearable heart rate monitoring biosensors. We conducted a 70-minute data collection procedure to obtain HRV data from 32 participants followed by a 10-minute semi-structured interview on sensors' wearability and comfort, long-term use, aesthetics, and social acceptance. We performed quantitative analysis consisting of correlation and agreement analysis on the HRV data and thematic analysis on qualitative data obtained from interviews. Our results show that the electrocardiography (ECG) chest strap achieved the highest correlation and agreement levels in all sessions and had the lowest amount of artifacts, followed by the photoplethysmography (PPG) wristband, ECG sensor board kit and PPG smartwatch. In all three sessions, wrist-worn devices showed a lower amount of agreement and correlation with the reference device. Qualitative findings from interviews highlight that participants prefer wrist and arm-worn devices in terms of aesthetics, wearability, and comfort, followed by chest-worn devices. Moreover, participants mentioned that the latter are more likely to invite social judgment from others, and they would not want to wear it in public. Participants preferred the chest strap for short-term use and the wrist and arm-worn sensors over long-time.