title: Electrocardiographic motion artifact versus electrode impedance.
abstract: We degraded electrocardiographic electrodes by exposing them to air for four days and evaluated them on 12 subjects. After application, we recorded the electrocardiogram (including motion artifact), missed QRS detections and electrode impedance during 5 min of arm and body movements. Missed QRS detections increased with electrode impedance but correlation was poor. Increased electrode impedance was not a reliable predictor of a poor electrode and the need to replace it.
authors.affiliation: Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI 53706, USA.
authors.forename: Scott R
authors.initials: SR
authors.lastname: Wiese
authors.forename: Paul
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Anheier
authors.forename: Rafael D
authors.initials: RD
authors.lastname: Connemara
authors.forename: Anna T
authors.initials: AT
authors.lastname: Mollner
authors.forename: Thomas F
authors.initials: TF
authors.lastname: Neils
authors.forename: Joshua A
authors.initials: JA
authors.lastname: Kahn
authors.forename: John G
authors.initials: JG
authors.lastname: Webster
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D016477:Artifacts; D017097:Electric Impedance; D004562:Electrocardiography / Q000295:instrumentation* / Q000379:methods*; D004566:Electrodes; D019544:Equipment Failure Analysis; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D009068:Movement; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity