Abstract
Heart Rate Variability (HRV) is a marker used for assessing autonomic nervous system function, derived from the timing between R-peaks in electrocardiogram (ECG) signals. Accurate detection of QRS complexes is essential for reliable HRV computation. While many R-wave detection algorithms exist, their impact on the accuracy of HRV metrics remains underexplored. This study addresses this gap by assessing how QRS detection errors affect HRV analysis across different algorithms and recording setups. We evaluated eight widely used QRS detectors using ECG recordings from 25 healthy participants under rest, cognitive load, and physical activity conditions. Two acquisition setups were considered: “chest strap” and “loose cables.” We used the manually annotated R-peaks to calculate the ground-truth HRV metric values. The relationship between the detector performance and HRV errors was evaluated for 11 metrics using the concordance correlation coefficient (CCC). Results showed significant variability in detector performance across algorithms and setups. No single QRS detection algorithm outperformed across all scenarios. Loose cable recordings yielded higher CCC values than chest straps, particularly for MeanNN and LF power. These findings highlight the critical role of QRS detector selection and signal acquisition conditions in HRV analysis. They underscore the need for context-specific benchmarking, particularly for wearable and ambulatory applications where signal quality can vary. Ultimately, this study offers practical recommendations for clinicians and researchers on selecting QRS detection algorithms that best align with their specific analytical objectives and recording conditions.
Full text
2,140 characters
· extracted from
oa-doi-fallback
· click to expand
Abstract
Heart Rate Variability (HRV) is a marker used for assessing autonomic nervous system function, derived from the timing between R-peaks in electrocardiogram (ECG) signals. Accurate detection of QRS complexes is essential for reliable HRV computation. While many R-wave detection algorithms exist, their impact on the accuracy of HRV metrics remains underexplored. This study addresses this gap by assessing how QRS detection errors affect HRV analysis across different algorithms and recording setups. We evaluated eight widely used QRS detectors using ECG recordings from 25 healthy participants under rest, cognitive load, and physical activity conditions. Two acquisition setups were considered: “chest strap” and “loose cables.” We used the manually annotated R-peaks to calculate the ground-truth HRV metric values. The relationship between the detector performance and HRV errors was evaluated for 11 metrics using the concordance correlation coefficient (CCC). Results showed significant variability in detector performance across algorithms and setups. No single QRS detection algorithm outperformed across all scenarios. Loose cable recordings yielded higher CCC values than chest straps, particularly for MeanNN and LF power. These findings highlight the critical role of QRS detector selection and signal acquisition conditions in HRV analysis. They underscore the need for context-specific benchmarking, particularly for wearable and ambulatory applications where signal quality can vary. Ultimately, this study offers practical recommendations for clinicians and researchers on selecting QRS detection algorithms that best align with their specific analytical objectives and recording conditions.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Footnotes
This work was supported in part by Agencia Nacional de Investigación y Desarrollo (ANID): Grants BASAL AFB240002 (A.W.), BASAL FB210008 (M.O.), Anillo ACT210053, FONDECYT INICIACION 11241484 (M.O.), FONDECYT EXPLORACION 13240042 (M.O.), FONDECYT REGULAR 1231132 (A.W.).
(e-mail: alejandro.weinstein{at}usm.cl; jrodino14{at}gmail.com).
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.