ArticlePloS one2026
Time and frequency characteristics of various noninvasive heartbeat sensors.
Article in PloS one, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Heart rate and cardiac dynamics can be monitored using several physiological signals, each with its own biophysical basis and signal characteristics. However, while individual properties of electrocardiogram (ECG), phonocardiogram (PCG), seismocardiogram (SCG), photoplethysmogram (PPG), and piezoplethysmogram (PiPG) are documented, systematic cross-modal comparisons remain scarce. This study aims to consolidate both the time and frequency domain features of these widely accessible technologies to provide practical guidelines for signal processing and multimodal integration. We simultaneously recorded ECG, PCG, SCG, PPG, and PiPG under standardized resting conditions and aligned all modalities on the ECG R-peak. Results highlight clear consistencies (e.g., reproducible morphology and spectra for ECG, PPG, and PiPG) as well as higher variability in PCG and SCG due to sensor coupling and anatomical factors. Temporal latencies relative to the ECG confirm known physiological conduction delays, while frequency analysis identifies modality-specific bands: ~ 30 Hz for PCG, 11-14 Hz for SCG, and 1-2 Hz for PPG/PiPG. Bandwidth analysis further emphasizes differences in spectral richness across modalities. By presenting these benchmarks in a unified framework, this work addresses the current gap between isolated characterizations and integrated signal knowledge. The outcome is a reference dataset and interpretation map that can guide filtering strategies, feature extraction, and the design of multimodal cardiac monitoring systems.
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.