The differentiator versus other wearables: Today, most wearables already measure heart rate and sleep. Our project, however, focuses on cross-referencing these signals with real focus and memory tasks at the moment they happen. In your view, what is the scientific value of giving this “cognitive context” to biometrics, something missing from what currently exists on the market?
Having a tool that cross-references physiological data with cognitive tasks will make it possible to measure whether heart activity levels (or another physiological measure) have an impact on specific tasks, such as memory or focus tasks. It allows a better understanding of which cognitive processes may be affected by these physiological states, and consequently whether this could also be associated with more general domains, such as work performance.
The stress you don’t feel: We are often under stress and don’t realize it until exhaustion. How does using small questions on the phone (pop-ups) help a person compare what they “think” they feel with what the sensors are actually reading?
Stress is often assessed by comparison to other moments of the day or of the person’s life. In phases when someone is particularly exposed to very stressful situations, they may rate their stress as low compared to another moment of that day, yet it is still high relative to other periods of their life. By making a subjective assessment and then comparing it with the objective values reported by the sensors, the person can realize that, even though they didn’t rate their level as very stressful, they have indicators above their normal (provided the tool has a broad set of data available to it).
The “panic” button as a label: Does it make sense to have a physical button on the band for the person to click when they feel unwell (as an event marker)? Does this “manual log” help the system better understand the difference between the person simply being physically active and being in a moment of real emotional stress?
The sensors record the signal continuously and generally don’t have much capacity for inference or for perceiving context; they only register whether there are fluctuations or extreme values in certain measures. We know that in some cases this data can be used to alert the person to see a doctor, or even to call an emergency line directly. A panic / emotional stress button would serve to flag, within the record of physiological data, that a situation occurred which triggered an intense emotional response. If the person uses the device with the sensors for some time and keeps logging these stress situations, a model could be built in later stages that anticipates moments when the person is approaching physiological levels that could easily trigger a panic episode.
Seeing in order to change: Do you believe that a report correlating a drop in focus with peaks of biometric stress is a stronger incentive to change habits than simply receiving generic advice from an app?
It can help people find strategies to regulate stress, and provide useful information that lets them organize their work tasks around their peaks of focus and performance, and so on.
Sharing with the psychologist: Currently, assessment relies heavily on questionnaires based on the patient’s memory (such as the PSS or STAI). If the user voluntarily shares these objective (physiological) reports, do you think it helps in the consultation as an “extra point of view”, more precise than traditional self-reporting?
I think self-reporting will always be relevant, but the data from these reports can contribute to a better understanding of the dynamics and of how the person manages their stress over time and across the day.