ArticleFrontiers in neuroergonomics2025
Validation of the EmotiBit wearable sensor for heart-based measures under varying workload conditions.
Article in Frontiers in neuroergonomics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The EmotiBit photoplethysmography (PPG) device allows user-owned data collection for measures of cardiovascular activity (CVA) and electrodermal activity (EDA) in naturalistic settings. The aim of this study was to evaluate the validity of this device for collecting high-quality data while participants experience varying levels of cognitive workload. Methods: Using a standardized criterion validity protocol, recordings of 15 participants performing a cognitive workload task were compared for the EmotiBit and a reference electrocardiography (ECG) device (BITalino PsychoBit). Multiple preprocessing pipelines and a signal quality check were implemented. Parameters of interest including heart rate (HR), heart rate variability (HRV) measures, skin conductance level (SCL), and skin conductance response (SCR) measures were assessed using Bland-Altman plot and ratio (BAr) analyses, as well as cross-correlations of the EDA signal time series of both devices. Results: BAr results indicated good agreement between devices regarding HR with an average difference of 1-2 beats per minute (bpm). HRV measures yielded an insufficient BAr, albeit most data points lay within a priori boundaries of agreement. EDA measures yielded insufficient agreement for comparing SCL and SCR number and amplitude. Discussion: The results are comparable to the validation of similar wearable PPG devices and extend the validation of the EmotiBit by assessing the acquired signals during varying levels of cognitive workload. While the device may be used to collect HR for scientific data analysis, its quality regarding HRV and EDA measures is not comparable to a standard ECG. Significance: This study provides the first systematic validation following a standardized protocol of the EmotiBit PPG device relative to an ECG when considering recordings collected during cognitive workload induction.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.