Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 11, 2025
Calculating Heart Rate Variability from ECG Data from Youth with Cerebral Palsy During Active Video Game Sessions
Published on: June 5, 2019
Heart rate responses, agreement and accuracy among persons with severe disabilities participating in the indirect
Andreas Jørgensen1, Mette Toftager2, Martin Eghøj1
1National Institute of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Introduction:
Heart rate (HR) monitors are rarely used by people living with disabilities (PLWD), and their accuracy is undocumented. Thus, this study aims to describe the HR response during the Team Twin co-running program and, secondly, to assess the agreement and accuracy of using HR monitors among PLWD.
Methods:
This 16-week single-arm observational study included 18 people with various disabilities. During the study, the subjects wore a Garmin Vivosmart 4 watch (wrist). To evaluate the agreement and accuracy we applied Garmin's HRM-DUAL™ chest-worn HR monitors for comparison with the Vivosmart 4. The HR response analysis was performed descriptively and with a mixed regression model. The HR agreement and accuracy procedure was conducted on a subsample of five subjects and analyzed using Lin's concordance analysis, Bland and Altman's limits of agreement, and Cohen's kappa analysis of intensity zone agreement. This study was prospectively registered at Clinical Trials.gov (NCT04536779).
Results:
The subjects had a mean age of 35 (±12.6), 61% were male, 72% had cerebral palsy were 85% had GMFCS V-IV. HR was monitored for 202:10:33 (HH:MM:SS), with a mean HR of 90 ± 17 bpm during training and race. A total of 19% of the time was spent in intensity zones between light and moderate (30%-59% HR reserve) and 1% in vigorous (60%-84% HR reserve). The remaining 80% were in the very light intensity zone (<29% HR reserve). HR was highest at the start of race and training and steadily decreased. Inter-rater agreement was high (k = 0.75), limits of agreement were between -16 and 13 bpm, and accuracy was acceptable (Rc = 0.86).
Conclusion:
Disability type, individual, and contextual factors will likely affect HR responses and the agreement and accuracy for PLWD. The Vivosmart 4, while overall accurate, had low precision due to high variability in the estimation. These findings implicate the methodical and practical difficulties of utilizing HR monitors to measure HR and thus physical activity in adapted sports activities for severely disabled individuals.
