Innovative Android/iPhone app uses camera and flash to check your heart rate(androidandme.com)
androidandme.com
Innovative Android/iPhone app uses camera and flash to check your heart rate
http://androidandme.com/2010/08/applications/check-your-pulse-with-instant-heart-rate/
9 comments
Looks like an interesting application, BUT: it wants full network access. Why does this application need network access? We really need to start asking questions like that...
Cool! I remember building one of these in school, except we used Matlab and an infrared emitting led and an infrared detector.
I've not used this app but this is definitely possible and has been covered in the literature. The final link is to a paper presented recently which actually proposes using a mobile phone for this.
Would be interesting to see what other information can be extracted from optical signals. Tricorders can't be that far off now.
http://www.opticsinfobase.org/abstract.cfm?uri=oe-18-10-1076...
http://vassilios-chouliaras.com/pubs/c51.pdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2717852/
https://embs.papercept.net/conferences/scripts/abstract.pl?C...
Would be interesting to see what other information can be extracted from optical signals. Tricorders can't be that far off now.
http://www.opticsinfobase.org/abstract.cfm?uri=oe-18-10-1076...
http://vassilios-chouliaras.com/pubs/c51.pdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2717852/
https://embs.papercept.net/conferences/scripts/abstract.pl?C...
This is a neat idea and one I was both surprised and excited to find in the app store when I was looking for such a thing. Sadly it fails in implementation, it just doesn't work terribly well, I almost wonder if they are just faking it and have some heavy bias to report 80 bpm, since that's believe for most.
But in my experience at least, when you compare it to a real heart rate monitor, it is always quite off.
But in my experience at least, when you compare it to a real heart rate monitor, it is always quite off.
Bought it, was skeptical. However, it seems to perform as advertised. Compared with a manual beat check and it was only off by a couple.
Seems to be the same tech as Nintendo's Wii Vitality sensor, according to this summary of the patent:
http://www.siliconera.com/2010/10/07/nintendo-patent-shows-w...
http://www.siliconera.com/2010/10/07/nintendo-patent-shows-w...
It would be cool if someone with a real heart rate meter could run some tests to see how accurate this is. For what it's worth, I couldn't get it to work. The values fluctuated between 50-150 and refused to settle on any value.
On the android app, the heart pulses to your heartbeat. I checked my pulse simultaneously and it seems pretty accurate.
Seems to work perfect for me; it reported 68, and I counted 66 manually (by counting the number of beats myself in 10 seconds and multiplying by 6). For reference, I have an iPhone 4 and it utilized the flash.
Only counting 10 seconds worth reduces your precision pretty substantially. I generally count for a minimum of 15 seconds, with 30 being typical.
In any case, the software also shows a visual indicator of when it detects that your heartbeat, and it graphs your heartbeat over time. It's obvious from feeling your pulse while using it that it's correct, at least in my case with my phone.
2/3 of the people who responded to the poll on the site say it's accurate but I wonder what equipment they have on hand to let them know that what they believe to be the rate actually is.
I think if people are resting and see something between 50 and 80 b/m and then see 120-150 when exerting themselves, the device is probably accurate. It doesn't have to be perfect.
If they're doing this correctly they could also tell you your blood oxygen level. Blood Ox would be much more useful to a larger range of people.
how would that work? I can understand how pulse is detected, as you are measuring the differences from second to another and finding a pattern. But how would you know what correlates to a particular level of oxygen in a particular person?
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulse_oximetry for more information, but basically you measure the difference in absorbance between two specific wavelengths of light (one is near-IR and might not be captured by a cellphone's camera) over time. The difference tells you how saturated your hemoglobin is (most of which has oxygen bound to it).
Pulse oximetry is one of the more reliable/least invasive/cheapest methods of determining pulse rate. Additionally, there's a massive market opportunity for extremely cheap PulseOx sensors that keep a data history: busy hospital emergency rooms would love to slap such a sensor onto the finger of every patient that comes through the door (and subsequently has to sit and wait). When a patient crashes while sitting in the waiting room the pulse ox sensor would be able to give the nurses and doctors a little bit of information about what happened that lead to the crash.
Pulse oximetry is one of the more reliable/least invasive/cheapest methods of determining pulse rate. Additionally, there's a massive market opportunity for extremely cheap PulseOx sensors that keep a data history: busy hospital emergency rooms would love to slap such a sensor onto the finger of every patient that comes through the door (and subsequently has to sit and wait). When a patient crashes while sitting in the waiting room the pulse ox sensor would be able to give the nurses and doctors a little bit of information about what happened that lead to the crash.
From what I've read it simply takes the ratio of absorbance from the systole and diastole and considers that a stable non-linear estimator of %SpO2. The device itself needs to be calibrated to get the non-linear fit in place, but each individual is assumed to be (in gross measure) similar enough to get meaning out of it.
Of course, there's going to be huge variation across finger types, blood volumes, lighting conditions, placement. I wouldn't consider them to be accurate much more than those impedance-based body fat percentage computers. In both cases, huge discrepancies from healthy values are still telling despite small-scale noise.
Of course, there's going to be huge variation across finger types, blood volumes, lighting conditions, placement. I wouldn't consider them to be accurate much more than those impedance-based body fat percentage computers. In both cases, huge discrepancies from healthy values are still telling despite small-scale noise.
hmm, me thinks huge variations may be bigger than small-scale noise.
thanks.
thanks.
Not to be contrary, but that's what I said.
[deleted]
Does this really work? I wonder if it works with equal accuracy for people of different color or skin types.