Citations
To evaluate the accuracy of a smartphone application measuring heart rates (HRs), during an exercise and discussed clinical potential of the smartphone application for cardiac rehabilitation exercise programs.
Patients with heart disease (14 with myocardial infarction, 2 with angina pectoris) were recruited. Exercise protocol was comprised of a resting stage, Bruce stage II, Bruce stage III, and a recovery stage. To measure HR, subjects held smartphone in their hands and put the tip of their index finger on the built-in camera for 1 minute at each exercise stage such as resting stage, Bruce stage II, Bruce stage III, and recovery stage. The smartphones recorded photoplethysmography signal and HR was calculated every heart beat. HR data obtained from the smartphone during the exercise protocol was compared with the HR data obtained from a Holter electrocardiography monitor (control).
In each exercise protocol stage (resting stage, Bruce stage II, Bruce stage III, and the recovery stage), the HR averages obtained from a Holter monitor were 76.40±12.73, 113.09±14.52, 115.64±15.15, and 81.53±13.08 bpm, respectively. The simultaneously measured HR averages obtained from a smartphone were 76.41±12.82, 112.38±15.06, 115.83±15.36, and 81.53±13 bpm, respectively. The intraclass correlation coefficient (95% confidence interval) was 1.00 (1.00–1.00), 0.99 (0.98–0.99), 0.94 (0.83–0.98), and 1.00 (0.99–1.00) in resting stage, Bruce stage II, Bruce stage III, and recovery stage, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference between the HRs measured by either device at each stage (p>0.05).
The accuracy of measured HR from a smartphone was almost overlapped with the measurement from the Holter monitor in resting stage and recovery stage. However, we observed that the measurement error increased as the exercise intensity increased.
Citations
To investigate the ability of spinal cord injury (SCI) patients in the use mobile cellular devices, especially the smartphone.
Seventeen people with motor complete cervical SCI participated in the study. The assist-devices deemed most fitting were introduced to the patients: a mouth stick, multifunctional splint, activities of daily living (ADL) splint, universal cuff or none of the above. To determine the effective devices, a Multi-Directional Click Test (MDCT), Phone Number Test (PNT), and individual satisfaction inquiry were used. The most appropriate assist device was selected by MDCT. Subsequently PNT and individual satisfaction inquiry were performed with the conventional model and compared.
Those with C4 cord injury chose mouth stick. Those with C5 cord injury chose multifunctional splint (3 people) and ADL splint (2 people). Those with C6 cord injury chose universal cuff (3 people) or bare hands only. Those with C7 cord injury chose universal cuff (3 people). With a smartphone, all participants were able to complete the PNT. With a conventional model, only twelve participants (71%) were able to complete the same test. While it took 26.8±6.8 seconds with a conventional model to complete PNT, the same test took 18.8±10.9 seconds to complete with a smartphone (p<0.05). Overall, participants expressed higher satisfaction when using a smartphone.
The results offer a practical insight into the appropriate assist devices for SCI patients who wish to use mobile cellular devices, particularly smartphones. When the SCI patients are given the use of a smartphone with the appropriate assist devices, the SCI patients are expected to access mobile cellular device faster and with more satisfaction.
Citations
First
Prev
