Department of Psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
School of Psychological Science, University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia.
Behav Res Methods. 2024 Oct;56(7):1-20. doi: 10.3758/s13428-024-02387-3. Epub 2024 Mar 25.
Despite the increasing popularity of ambulatory assessment, the reliability and validity of psychophysiological signals from wearable devices is unproven in daily life settings. We evaluated the reliability and validity of physiological signals (electrocardiogram, ECG; photoplethysmography, PPG; electrodermal activity, EDA) collected from two wearable devices (Movisens EcgMove4 and Empatica E4) in the lab (N = 67) and daily life (N = 20) among adults aged 18-64 with Mindware as the laboratory gold standard. Results revealed that both wearable devices' valid data rates in daily life were lower than in the laboratory (Movisens ECG 82.94 vs. 93.10%, Empatica PPG 8.79 vs. 26.14%, and Empatica EDA 41.16 vs. 42.67%, respectively). The poor valid data rates of Empatica PPG signals in the laboratory could be partially attributed to participants' hand movements (r = - .27, p = .03). In laboratory settings, heart rate (HR) derived from both wearable devices exhibited higher concurrent validity than heart rate variability (HRV) metrics (ICCs 0.98-1.00 vs. 0.75-0.97). The number of skin conductance responses (SCRs) derived from Empatica showed higher concurrent validity than skin conductance level (SCL, ICCs 0.38 vs. 0.09). Movisens EcgMove4 provided more reliable and valid HRV measurements than Empatica E4 in both laboratory (split-half reliability: 0.95-0.99 vs. 0.85-0.98; concurrent validity: 0.95-1.00 vs. 0.75-0.98; valid data rate: 93.10 vs. 26.14%) and ambulatory settings (split-half reliability: 0.99-1.00 vs. 0.89-0.98; valid data rate: 82.94 vs. 8.79%). Although the reliability and validity of wearable devices are improving, findings suggest researchers should select devices that yield consistently robust and valid data for their measures of interest.
尽管移动评估越来越受欢迎，但可穿戴设备的心理生理信号的可靠性和有效性在日常生活环境中尚未得到证实。我们评估了两种可穿戴设备（Movisens EcgMove4 和 Empatica E4）在实验室（N=67）和日常生活（N=20）中收集的生理信号（心电图，ECG；光体积描记法，PPG；皮肤电活动，EDA）的可靠性和有效性，Mindware 作为实验室金标准。结果表明，两种可穿戴设备在日常生活中的有效数据率均低于实验室（Movisens ECG 为 82.94%，而 Empatica PPG 为 26.14%，Empatica EDA 为 41.16%，而分别为 42.67%）。实验室中 Empatica PPG 信号的有效数据率较低可能部分归因于参与者的手部运动（r = -.27，p =.03）。在实验室环境中，两种可穿戴设备得出的心率（HR）与心率变异性（HRV）指标相比具有更高的同时有效性（ICC 为 0.98-1.00 比 0.75-0.97）。从 Empatica 得出的皮肤电反应（SCR）数量与皮肤电水平（SCL，ICC 为 0.38 比 0.09）相比具有更高的同时有效性。Movisens EcgMove4 在实验室（半分可靠性：0.95-0.99 比 0.85-0.98；同时有效性：0.95-1.00 比 0.75-0.98；有效数据率：93.10 比 26.14%）和动态环境（半分可靠性：0.99-1.00 比 0.89-0.98；有效数据率：82.94 比 8.79%）中均比 Empatica E4 提供了更可靠和有效的 HRV 测量值。尽管可穿戴设备的可靠性和有效性正在提高，但研究结果表明，研究人员应该为他们感兴趣的测量选择能够产生一致稳健和有效数据的设备。
