From lab to life: Evaluating the reliability and validity of psychophysiological data from wearable devices in laboratory and ambulatory settings.

Abstract

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.