Background motion is on. Select to pause.
Published MindMics studies compared heart rate and beat-to-beat timing from ear-based infrasonic sensing with ECG. Synseer’s integrated products and additional functions require their own validation.
Research film · Product appearance conceptPublished clinical studies of MindMics infrasonic hemodynography compared ear-based heart rate and beat-to-beat timing measurements with ECG. The evidence applies to the studied technology, endpoints and conditions.
Fit, movement, acoustic sealing and the setting around a measurement shape what an observation can tell us. Our development work brings those conditions into the sensing and interpretation process.
Our research asks whether signals aligned in time and compared against a person’s own history can improve prediction of a defined outcome. A study needs a defined population, appropriate reference measurements and product-specific validation.
Peer-reviewed MindMics research in npj Digital Medicine compared infrasonic hemodynography with ECG for heart rate and beat-to-beat timing.
Gilliam and colleagues · npj Digital Medicine 5, 189 (2022) · DOI 10.1038/s41746-022-00725-3
These results apply to the studied MindMics system, endpoints and conditions.
Synseer’s integrated products and added functions require their own validation.
52 seconds
What makes a signal from the ear useful? Fit and movement can change what we pick up.
Synseer uses a unique combination of four forms of sound to gather critical biometric information. Infrasonic sound, ultrasonic sound, otoacoustic emissions, or OAE, and ultra-high-frequency sound, or UHF.
MindMics is our partner in infrasonic sensing. Its published research compared heart rate and beat-to-beat timing with ECG.
Synseer’s integrated products require their own evidence. We define who takes part, what to compare against, and when a signal is too uncertain to use.
Explore the research with Synseer.
What is the intended use, for whom, and under which conditions?
How is the signal characterized, and how are fit, movement, completeness and quality handled?
What reference and acceptance criteria would support a meaningful evaluation?
What evidence would support continuing, changing or stopping the proposed capability?