Anda di halaman 1dari 8

VALIDATION OF UPDATED BASIS ENERGY

EXPENDITURE FEATURE AT CAL POLY POMONA


HUMAN PERFORMANCE RESEARCH LABORATORY
Firmware Version 1.18.3
December 2015

ABSTRACT
In order to continue providing users with the best in class activity monitoring experience, Basis, an Intel
Company, has progressively developed algorithms for heart rate and calorie detection. Hundreds of hours of in-
house testing and evaluation were invested in the development of these algorithms. To reinforce the reliability of the
algorithmic improvements, a validation study was performed at the Human Performance Research Lab at California
State Polytechnic University, Pomona (Cal-Poly Pomona), to assess the reliability of the Basis Peak.

The study aimed to validate the Basis Peak against a criterion measure for heart rate and calorie burn (also referred to
as energy expenditure). Additionally, the study intended to compare the reliability of the Basis Peak against a similar
activity tracker, the Fitbit Charge HR*. Both devices were subject to testing during which human subjects performed
an exercise protocol. Heart rate and expended energy values from both devices were respectively compared against
laboratory grade electrocardiograph (ECG) and indirect calorimetry.

Considerable agreement was observed between Basis Peak heart rate values and the ECG with an average difference
of 5.1%. Excellent correlation was also observed by the Basis Peak energy expenditure values and indirect calorimetry
with an average difference of 13.3%. The Fitbit Charge HR* had notably less comparable agreement with the ECG and
indirect calorimetry, with respective average differences of 8.7% and 27.3%.

INTRODUCTION
Commercially available activity trackers are in abundance, and their increasing prevalence indicates a growing
consumer market focus on personal health and well-being. Self-monitoring can provide invaluable information,
which in turn provides insights that can be applied towards weight regulation, athletic training, achievement of
healthier habits, or an overall general increase in awareness of one’s well being. There is a known association between
inactivity and an increase in risk for health problems such as obesity, cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes,
and mortality 1, 2, 3, 4
. Small increases in physical activity levels, when sustained, can have noticeable advantageous
impacts on individual health.

Validation of Updated Basis Energy Expenditure Detection Feature Page 1


Growing self-awareness regarding personal health through self-tracking is largely enabled by advancements in
data collection technology 5. Sophisticated algorithms and multi-sensor technology are capable of measuring and
reflecting biometrics including heart rate and energy expenditure. The Basis Peak is one such activity tracker, with
continuous optical heart rate monitoring and real time measures of energy expenditure (or calories burned), during
exercise, inactivity, and sleep. Another well-known activity tracker is the Fitbit Charge HR*, which also has heart rate
and calories monitoring capabilities.

As activity trackers continue to become more prevalent, the need to validate their accuracy and reliability becomes
more important 6, 7, 8. In order to continue to enhance performance, Basis and Intel conduct continual assessment and
improvement of Peak’s sensors, algorithms, and associated technologies. In October 2014, Basis commissioned and
partnered with the Human Performance Center at the University of California, San Francisco Medical Center to validate
Peak and its algorithms. The results of the studies were conclusively positive and can be found here_______________.

In efforts to evaluate recent heart rate and energy expenditure algorithm improvements, Basis, an Intel Company,
commissioned a study at the Human Performance Research Lab at Cal-Poly Pomona. Unlike prior studies, resistance
exercises were included in this iteration’s protocol to increase the robustness of testing and better reflect a range of
real world usage. The primary aim of the study was to further validate the accuracy of Basis Peak’s heart rate and
calories monitoring with respect to benchmark measures acquired by electrocardiography and indirect calorimetry. A
secondary purpose was to compare the accuracies of the Basis Peak against that of the Fitbit Charge HR*.

METHODOLOGY
All experimental procedures were conducted on human volunteers in accordance with guidelines as
determined by the International Review Board of California State Polytechnic University, Pomona. The sample
pool consisted of 24 healthy subjects (12 males, and 12 females) between the ages of 20 and 31. Anthropometric
measurements were taken immediately prior to the start of data collection. Exclusion criteria consisted of any
significant medical diagnoses, including cardiovascular or pulmonary diseases, which may potentially increase the
risk of exercising or limit a subject’s ability to exercise.

All subjects underwent the same 77 minute protocol. Each participant completed an initial rest period (lying down)
of 15 minutes followed by 5 minute periods of each of the following activities: low cycling (60W resistance), intense
cycling (120W), walk (3.0-3.5mph speed), jog (4.0-5.0mph), run (5.5-7.0mph), arm raises with self-selected added
resistance (12 reps), lunges with self-selected added resistance (12 reps), and plank (60 second hold). In between
each exercise activity was a 5 minute rest period.

Each subject wore a Basis Peak on one wrist and a Fitbit Charge HR* on the opposite wrist. Wrist assignment (i.e. left
and right) alternated between subjects. Care was taken to follow proper wear guidelines as suggested for each device
9
. Criterion measurements of heart rate and energy expenditure were provided respectively by electrocardiography
(12-lead) and indirect calorimetry using a ParvoMedics TrueOne metabolic cart (met cart).

Validation of Updated Basis Energy Expenditure Detection Feature Page 2


RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Energy Expenditure:
Each subject trial was designed to emulate an
inclusive 60 minute workout and on average
subjects expended 294.9 kcals per workout.
Excellent agreement was observed between
the Basis Peak energy expenditure algorithm
and indirect calorimetry as demonstrated
by an average difference of 13.3%. The
accuracy of the energy expenditure values
from the Fitbit Charge HR* was noticeably
lower with an average difference of 27.3 %.
The total amount of expended energy for each
workout as captured by indirect calorimetry,
Figure 1 | Comparison of energy expenditure values from the Basis Peak, the Fitbit Charge HR*, and
the Basis Peak, and the Fitbit Charge HR* indirect calorimetry for each workout
is displayed in Figure 1. The Fitbit Charge
HR* was observed to overestimate energy
expenditure with an average bias of +21.5%.
Contrastingly, the Basis Peak was observed to
slightly underestimate energy expenditure with
an average bias of -1.1%.

Heart Rate:
The Basis Peak demonstrated considerable
accuracy with an average difference of 5.1%
(see Table 1). Contrastingly, the Fitbit Charge
HR* demonstrated less favorable accuracy
with an average difference of 8.7%.
Exceptional correlation (R = 0.89) between
Basis Peak heart rate values and that of ECG
was seen (see Figure 2), while the observed
correlation for the Fitbit Charge HR* (R=0.80)
was notcieably lower (see Figure 3). Results
were statistically significant (p<0.001).

Table 1 | By activity, the average differences for heart rate from the Basis Peak and the
Fitbit Charge HR* as compared to ECG. The activity “All” refers to the entire trial period
of data collection.

Validation of Updated Basis Energy Expenditure Detection Feature Page 3


Figure 2 | Comparison of Basis Peak and ECG Heart Rate Values

Figure 3 | Comparison of all heart rate values from the Fitbit Charge HR* and the ECG

Validation of Updated Basis Energy Expenditure Detection Feature Page 4


Figure 4 | Comparison of heart rate from the Basis Peak and from the ECG for a female subject

Figure 5 | Comparison of heart rate from the Fitbit Charge HR* and from the ECG for a female subject

Validation of Updated Basis Energy Expenditure Detection Feature Page 5


Figure 6 | Comparison of heart rate from the Fitbit Charge HR* and from the ECG for a male subject

Figure 7 | Comparison of heart rate values from the Fitbit Charge HR* and from the ECG for a male subject

Validation of Updated Basis Energy Expenditure Detection Feature Page 6


CONCLUSION
Overall throughout the experiment, Basis Peak optical heart rate monitoring outperformed that of the Fitbit Charge
HR*. The Basis Peak had higher agreement (R = 0.89, average difference = 5.1%) with a medical grade ECG
compared to the Fitbit Charge HR* (R=0.80, average difference =8.7%). Similar efficacy was demonstrated for the
Basis Peak energy expenditure algorithm (average difference=13.3%), whereas the Fitbit Charge HR* exhibited lower
correlation (average difference=27.3 %) with indirect calorimetry. Overall, the Basis Peak exhibited accuracy in heart
rate and expended energy detection.

legal notices and disclaimers


Basis, an Intel Company, commissioned the validation study described in this paper and collaborated in the development of the benchmarks used to validate the accuracy of the Basis
Peak’s heart rate and calories monitoring and compare against the Fitbit Charge HR*. You should consult other information and performance tests to assist you in fully evaluating the
products described and any contemplated purchases.

Tests document performance of components on a particular test, in specific systems. Differences in hardware, software, or configuration will affect actual performance. Consult other
sources of information to evaluate performance as you consider your purchase. For more complete information about performance and benchmark results, visit http://www.intel.
com/performance

© 2015 Intel Corporation. All Rights Reserved. Intel and Basis Peak are trademarks of Intel Corporation in the United States and other countries.

*Other names may be claimed as the property of others.

Validation of Updated Basis Energy Expenditure Detection Feature Page 7


REFERENCES
1 Hamilton MT, Hamilton DG, Zderic TW. Role of low energy expenditure and sitting in obesity, metabolic syndrome,
type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular disease. Diabetes. 2007; 56(11): 2655-2667.
2 Kozey-Keadle S, Libertine A, Lyden K, et al. Validation of wearable monitors for assessing sedentary behavior.
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. 2011; 43(8):1561-7.
3 Lee IM, Shiroma EJ, Lobelo F, et al. Effect of physical inactivity on major non-communicable diseases worldwide:
an analysis of burden of disease and life expectancy. Lancet. 2012; 380(9838): 219-229.
4 Warburton DER, Nicol CW, Bredin SSD. Health benefits of physical activity: the evidence. Canadian Medical
Association Journal. 2006; 174(6): 801-9.
5 Lyons E, Zakkoyya LH, Mayrsohn BG, et al. Behavior change techniques implemented in electronic lifestyle activity
monitors: A systematic content analysis. Journal of Medical Internet Research. 2014; 16(8): e192.
6 Bai Y, Welk GJ, Yoon HN, et al. Comparison of consumer and research monitors under semistructured settings.
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. 2015; Advance online publication.
7 Ferguson T, Rowlands AV, Olds T, et al. The validity of consumer-level, activity monitors in healthy adults worn in
free-living conditions: a cross-sectional study. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity.
2015; 12:42.
8 Pantelopoulos A and Bourbakis NG. A survey on wearable sensor-based systems for health monitoring
and prognosis. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics—Part C: Applications and Reviews.
2010; 40(1): 1-12.
9 Fitbit Inc. Fitbit Charge HR Product Manual Version 1.0

Validation of Updated Basis Energy Expenditure Detection Feature Page 8

Anda mungkin juga menyukai