ArticleBehavior research methods2026
Standardized synchronization and validation pipeline for physiological biomarkers across multiple devices.
Article in Behavior research methods, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Wearable devices enable continuous monitoring of physiological signals in real-world settings, yet a standardized approach for synchronizing signals across devices remains lacking. We present a generalizable, user-friendly pipeline that enables synchronization of any two devices capturing the same physiological signals, without requiring coding expertise. The pipeline performs resampling, dynamic time warping alignment, amplitude correction via wavelet transforms, and signal standardization, followed by agreement analyses at both waveform and feature levels. To demonstrate its validity, we applied the pipeline to a case study comparing two research-grade devices, the Empatica E4 and the EmbracePlus, using up to 48 h of concurrent recordings from 31 participants. We compared signal-level agreement across waveform similarity, amplitude distribution, spectral content, and extracted features between the two research-grade devices to determine their interchangeability for longitudinal and multi-site studies. Specifically, we aimed to determine how well these devices agree at the signal level and to identify which physiological signals are most robust to device-specific variability. Four signals were examined (blood volume pulse, electrodermal activity, accelerometry, and temperature) using NeuroKit2 and FLIRT. We computed Pearson and concordance correlation coefficients, Bland-Altman bias and limits of agreement, root mean squared error (RMSE), KL divergence, spectral coherence, mutual information, and feature-level correlations using NeuroKit2 and FLIRT. Results showed near-perfect agreement for BVP (concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) ≈ 1.0; coherence ≤ 0.98) and phasic EDA features (CCC 0.85-0.99), whereas tonic EDA, temperature, and accelerometry exhibited systematic amplitude biases (EmbracePlus lower) and axis-dependent variability (Z-axis CCC = 0.85; Y-axis = 0.19). Relative signal dynamics were preserved across devices despite differences in absolute levels. These findings support integration of BVP, EDA, and TEMP data across E4 and EmbracePlus with proper preprocessing, while highlighting calibration needs for movement signals.
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.