ArticleBiosensors2026
Wearable and Invisible ECG Quality and Usability Assessment in Cockpit Monitoring.
Article in Biosensors, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Continuous physiological monitoring can support pilot-state assessment, but routine cockpit use requires sensing approaches that are both unobtrusive and physiologically reliable. Wearable ECG (wECG) provides stable cardiac recordings through skin-contact electrodes, whereas cockpit-integrated invisible ECG (iECG) can reduce user burden by acquiring signals through instrumented controls. However, iECG depends on intermittent hand contact and may show incomplete ECG morphology even when cardiac timing information is still preserved. This study proposes a window-based framework to assess the quality and task-specific usability of simultaneous wECG and iECG acquired during simulated flight. ECG data were collected in an Airbus A320 simulator from 14 volunteers, including experienced pilots and novices. The framework combines contact availability, R-peak reliability, PQRST morphology, and complementary signal quality indices into graded usability classes for heart rate (HR)-oriented monitoring. The iECG channel remained accessible for most of the analyzed recording time, with 93.8% of windows showing full or partial contact. Several windows classified as low quality by individual SQIs were retained as HR-usable when contact and R-peak timing remained reliable, indicating that single-metric rejection can be overly conservative for external-contact ECG. HR agreement supported the physiological relevance of the proposed classes: concordant wECG-iECG windows showed a mean absolute error (MAE) of 1.1 bpm, compared with 7.1 bpm for discordant windows. Bland-Altman analysis for iECG windows classified as usable for HR estimation showed a small mean bias of 1.4 bpm. These findings indicate that incomplete ECG morphology does not necessarily imply loss of HR usability, and that contact-aware, task-specific classification can preserve useful physiological information from unobtrusive cockpit interfaces.
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.