# Validation of Wired and Wireless Interconnected Body Sensor Networks
## 5 Performance Evaluation  
### Comparing DigiAID and Hexoskin  
Figure 7a,b depict results of RR and HR for walking activity of both male and female subjects. Generally, both platforms captured the results of RR within the range. Exceptionally at few instances the Hexoskin detected higher RR than the specified range. For both male and female DigiAID and  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline
**Activity** & **Hear Rate** & **Respiratory Rate** \\  & **[beats/min]** & **[breaths/min]** \\ \hline Sit & 60–100 & 12–20 \\ Walk & 60–100 & 18–29 \\ Sleep & 60–100 & 06–20 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 1: Normal Ranges for Heart and Respiratory Rate.  
Figure 6: Positioning and movements of different subjects during experiments. (**A**) Wired DigiAID and Hexoskin; (**B**) Wireless DigiAID.  
Hexoskin performs equally good to collect RR values. For HR, Hexoskin values are again stable and provide values around 70 beats/min. Whereas, the values from DigiAID are deviating and difference between both platforms is huge at certain intervals revealing that pulse-oximeter may not be the good sensor choice to be utilized.  
Figure 8a,b show the RR and HR of the both the male and female subjects during sitting scenario. The captured RR for females is within range for both DigiAID and Hexoskin, whereas for males both systems have captured slightly higher values. In both male and females, we observe that the behavior of Hexoskin is more fluctuating compared to DigiAID mainly due to usage of stretch based sensor in Hexoskin than air flow based sensor in DigiAID. The logged values of HR show that both platforms have captured values which are within range. We observe that HR values of Hexoskin are more stable than DigiAID. This is mainly because DigiAID take HR values using pulse-oximeter sensor compared to single channel ECG sensor used by the Hexoskin, which captures more accurate results. However, the results captured by DigiAID are also acceptable.  
Figure 9a shows results of RR for sleeping activity. We observe that for both platforms there are fluctuations in reading. However, the results for both male and female are within range except in few cases where Hexoskin values are beyond the range. Figure 9b depicts the HR results for sleeping activity. Both DigiAID and Hexoskin values are smooth and shows no fluctuations. In this scenario both sensors are performing well for male and female subjects.  
Figure 8: Measurements during sitting activity. (**a**) Respiratory rate; (**b**) Heart rate.  
Figure 7: Measurements during walking activity. (**a**) Respiratory rate; (**b**) Heart rate.  
Table 2 highlights the comparison between DigiAID and Hexoskin and summarizes our analysis for different activities. Here _good_ represents the condition where majority of values are within allowable range as shown in Table 1, _satisfactory_ where some deviation is observed and _not satisfactory_ where majority of values are not in range. During walking situation, DigiAID is highly accurate for RR as well as HR measurements. During sitting position, DigiAID is highly accurate for RR whereas results are not satisfactory for HR. However, DigiAID is again accurate for RR and HR in sleeping posture. Generally, DigiAID promises to be fundamental tools to optimize the rescue operations by reducing the diagnosis time, which may significantly impact the success rate of saving life, especially in areas of low medical coverage such as rural or mass casualty incident areas. Furthermore, it is observed that DigiAID performed equally good to commercial product in all activities. It was also revealed from the subjects performing experiments that the wired system was major hurdle in smoothly performing the experiments. This leads us to experiment a wireless DigiAID design solution.