Impact of motion artifacts on video-based non-intrusive heart rate measurement
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Measuring vital signs such as heart rate using a camera has the potential to enable better health monitoring for subjects at risk and as such enhance their quality of life. Applications could include driver monitoring via in-dash camera, critical function operator monitoring at work, or remote health monitoring via a webcam. For such a system to be feasible however, it needs to be work well in realistic scenarios where the subject does not sit completely still in front of a camera. Motion artifacts, if not taken into account when designing the system, yield inaccurate results and potentially create false alarms. In this paper, we start with a popular algorithm for extracting heart rate from video based on spatial and temporal filtering, quantify how key parameters used in the algorithm affect its performance in situations when the subject is not sitting still, analyze in detail the performance of the filtering approach in videos with motion, identify issues, and propose approaches to overcome those limitations. The paper shows that the use of wider filters and more levels in the Gaussian pyramid lead to a better performance when the subject is moving, but that the motion artifacts dominate the extracted signal.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it