↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of foot finding methods for deriving instantaneous pulse rates from photoplethysmographic signals

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
patent
2 patents

Citations

dimensions_citation
49 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
65 Mendeley
Title
Comparison of foot finding methods for deriving instantaneous pulse rates from photoplethysmographic signals
Published in
Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing, April 2015
DOI 10.1007/s10877-015-9695-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mathilde C. Hemon, Justin P. Phillips

Abstract

The suitability of different methods of finding the foot point of a pulse as measured using earlobe photoplethysmography during stationary conditions was investigated. Instantaneous pulse period (PP) values from PPG signals recorded from the ear in healthy volunteer subjects were compared with simultaneous ECG-derived cardiac periods (RR interval). Six methods of deriving pulse period were used, each based on a different method of finding specific landmark points on the PPG waveform. These methods included maximum and minimum value, maximum first and second derivative, 'intersecting tangents' and 'diastole patching' methods. Selected time domain HRV variables were also calculated from the PPG signals obtained using multiple methods and compared with ECG-derived HRV variables. The correlation between PPG and ECG was greatest for the intersecting tangents method compared to the other methods (RMSE = 5.69 ms, r (2) = 0.997). No significant differences between PP and RR were seen for all PPG methods, however the PRV variables derived using all methods showed significant differences to HRV, attributable to the sensitivity of PRV parameters to pulse transients and artifacts. The results suggest that the intersecting tangents method shows the most promise for extracting accurate pulse rate variability data from PPG datasets. This work has applications in other areas where pulse arrival time is a key measurement including pulse wave velocity assessment.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Austria 1 2%
Canada 1 2%
Unknown 63 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 13 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 17%
Researcher 9 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 5%
Lecturer 3 5%
Other 9 14%
Unknown 17 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 24 37%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 14%
Computer Science 5 8%
Mathematics 2 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 20 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 July 2022.
All research outputs
#4,654,572
of 22,888,307 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing
#86
of 677 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#59,005
of 265,145 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing
#1
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,888,307 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 677 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 265,145 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.