↓ Skip to main content

A Comparative Survey of Methods for Remote Heart Rate Detection From Frontal Face Videos

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
70 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
146 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A Comparative Survey of Methods for Remote Heart Rate Detection From Frontal Face Videos
Published in
Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology, May 2018
DOI 10.3389/fbioe.2018.00033
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chen Wang, Thierry Pun, Guillaume Chanel

Abstract

Remotely measuring physiological activity can provide substantial benefits for both the medical and the affective computing applications. Recent research has proposed different methodologies for the unobtrusive detection of heart rate (HR) using human face recordings. These methods are based on subtle color changes or motions of the face due to cardiovascular activities, which are invisible to human eyes but can be captured by digital cameras. Several approaches have been proposed such as signal processing and machine learning. However, these methods are compared with different datasets, and there is consequently no consensus on method performance. In this article, we describe and evaluate several methods defined in literature, from 2008 until present day, for the remote detection of HR using human face recordings. The general HR processing pipeline is divided into three stages: face video processing, face blood volume pulse (BVP) signal extraction, and HR computation. Approaches presented in the paper are classified and grouped according to each stage. At each stage, algorithms are analyzed and compared based on their performance using the public database MAHNOB-HCI. Results found in this article are limited on MAHNOB-HCI dataset. Results show that extracted face skin area contains more BVP information. Blind source separation and peak detection methods are more robust with head motions for estimating HR.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users 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 146 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 146 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 20 14%
Student > Master 20 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 13%
Student > Bachelor 13 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 5%
Other 17 12%
Unknown 50 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 34 23%
Engineering 27 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 4%
Neuroscience 6 4%
Social Sciences 3 2%
Other 11 8%
Unknown 59 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 10 January 2020.
All research outputs
#1,972,125
of 23,045,021 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
#217
of 6,737 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#44,294
of 326,177 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
#8
of 56 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,045,021 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,737 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 326,177 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 56 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.