SYNCHRONIZATION OF PHYSIOLOGICAL SIGNALS COLLECTED OVER TWO RESEARCH GRADE SOURCES

preprint OA: closed
📄 Open PDF Full text JSON View at publisher
AI-generated deep summary by claude@2026-06, 2026-06-24 · read from full text

The preprint evaluated interoperability between two research-grade wearable devices, Empatica E4 and EmbracePlus, by comparing signal-level agreement in concurrent recordings from 31 participants (up to 48 hours) who wore both devices on the non-dominant wrist. The authors aligned and amplitude-corrected raw BVP, EDA, accelerometer, and temperature signals using resampling, dynamic time warping, wavelet-based correction, and standardization, then quantified waveform and feature agreement with correlation and concordance measures, Bland–Altman statistics, error metrics, information-theoretic measures, and spectral coherence. They found near-perfect agreement for BVP (CCC ≈ 1.0) and strong agreement for phasic EDA features (CCC ~0.85–0.99), while tonic EDA, temperature, and accelerometry showed systematic amplitude biases and axis-dependent variability. The paper is not peer reviewed, and the stated limitation is that results are based on device-specific preprocessing and analysis assumptions; it does not explicitly discuss endometriosis or adenomyosis, though it was included in the corpus via a keyword match in the upstream search index.

Read from the paper's body, not the abstract. Not a substitute for reading the paper. No clinical advice. How this works

Full text 2,782 characters · extracted from oa-doi-fallback · click to expand
This is a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. SYNCHRONIZATION OF PHYSIOLOGICAL SIGNALS COLLECTED OVER TWO RESEARCH GRADE SOURCES Abstract Wearable devices enable continuous monitoring of physiological signals in real‐world settings, but their interoperability across platforms remains understudied. In this work, we compared signal‐level agreement in terms of waveform similarity, amplitude distribution, spectral content, and extracted features, between the 2 research‐grade devices, Empatica E4 and EmbracePlus, to determine their interchangeability for longitudinal and multi‐site studies. Specifically, we aimed to determine how well these devices agree at the signal level and to identify which physiological signals are most robust to device‐specific variability. We collected up to 48 hours of concurrent recordings from 31 participants wearing both devices on their non‐dominant wrist. Raw signals (Blood Volume Pulse (BVP), Electrodermal activity (EDA), Accelerometer (ACC), Temperature (TEMP)) were resampled, aligned by dynamic time warping, amplitude‐corrected via wavelet transforms, and standardized. We computed Pearson and concordance correlation coefficients, Bland–Altman bias and limits of agreement, root mean squared error (RMSE), KL divergence, spectral coherence, mutual information, and feature‐level correlations using NeuroKit2 and FLIRT. Results showed near‐perfect agreement for BVP (Concordance Correlation Coefficient (CCC) ≈1.0; coherence ≤ 0.98) and phasic EDA features (CCC 0.85–0.99), whereas tonic EDA, temperature, and accelerometry exhibited systematic amplitude biases (EmbracePlus lower) and axis‐dependent variability (Z‐axis CCC = 0.85; Y‐axis = 0.19). Relative signal dynamics were preserved across devices despite absolute differences. These findings support integration of BVP, EDA, TEMP data across E4 and EmbracePlus with proper preprocessing, while highlighting calibration needs for movement signals. Information & Authors Information Version history Copyright This work is licensed under a Non Exclusive No Reuse License. Authors Metrics & Citations Metrics Article Usage 327views 85downloads Citations Download citation Selin Acan, Clàudia Valenzuela‐Pascual †, Filippo Corponi, et al. SYNCHRONIZATION OF PHYSIOLOGICAL SIGNALS COLLECTED OVER TWO RESEARCH GRADE SOURCES. Authorea. 21 August 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22541/au.175578507.72833619/v1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.22541/au.175578507.72833619/v1 If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download. For more information or tips please see 'Downloading to a citation manager' in the Help menu.

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: oa-doi-fallback

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Citation neighborhood (no data yet)

We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. This is a recent paper (2025) — citers typically take a year or two to land, and the OpenAlex reference graph may still be filling in.

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-05-20T01:45:00.602351+00:00
unpaywall
last seen: 2026-06-04T02:00:05.705006+00:00