Measuring Tremor with Consumer Devices

A scientific project at the intersection of technology, neurology, and clinical research

In 2020, I co-authored a scientific article that explored a practical and timely question in digital health: can consumer devices such as smartphones and smartwatches measure tremor accurately enough to be useful in clinical research?

The paper, “Quantification of tremor using consumer product accelerometry is feasible in patients with essential tremor and Parkinson’s disease: a comparative study,” looked at tremor measurement in patients with Parkinson’s disease (PD) and essential tremor (ET). The study compared the technical performance of several consumer product accelerometers with a laboratory-grade accelerometer, which served as the reference standard.

The aim was simple, but important. Tremor is a key symptom in both conditions, and measuring it reliably matters when assessing disease severity, treatment response, and pharmacological effects. Traditionally, this kind of measurement has relied on equipment designed for research laboratories. This study asked whether everyday consumer devices could produce comparable results and therefore make tremor assessment more accessible, more flexible, and potentially easier to use in real-world or at-home settings.

What the study showed

The study tested seven consumer devices: an iPhone 7, iPod Touch 5, Apple Watch 2, Huawei Nexus 6P, Huawei Watch, mbientlab MetaWear watch, and mbientlab MetaWear clip. These were compared with a laboratory-grade accelerometer in ten patients with PD and ten patients with ET. Tremor was measured in two positions: resting arm position and extended arm position.

The results were encouraging, especially for tremor frequency. In both PD and ET patients, peak tremor frequency measured by the consumer devices did not significantly differ from the laboratory-grade accelerometer within the limits of agreement. In practical terms, this means the consumer devices were able to capture the key frequency signal reliably.

Amplitude was more complex. For ET patients, only the iPhone and MetaWear watch performed comparably to the laboratory reference. In PD patients, most devices performed comparably, with the exception of the iPod Touch and Huawei Nexus 6P. The study also showed that amplitude measurements were influenced by where the device was worn: devices placed more distally, such as clips and some handheld devices, tended to show higher amplitude than watches worn more proximally on the arm. That finding is important because it means amplitude data cannot always be directly compared across device types or placement locations.

Another useful result was that within-subject variability was lower than between-subject variability for both frequency and amplitude, and the resting arm position produced more stable measurements than the extended arm position. That has practical value for study design, because it suggests that consumer devices may be particularly useful in intra-individual or cross-over studies, especially when measurements are taken in a resting position.

Overall, the conclusion was clear: consumer products can be used for tremography, and they may support at-home tremor measurements in clinical research. For me, that was one of the most interesting aspects of the project, not only the technical result, but the possibility of making measurement more accessible without losing scientific value.

Why this project matters to me

My background has long been centered around clinical trials, with experience since 2015 in GCP-related project management, ePRO activities, and recruiting support. Alongside that, I have spent many years reading scientific articles, working through study details, and building a strong interest in the way evidence is generated and interpreted. I enjoy understanding not just what a study says, but how it is designed, why a method was chosen, and what the results mean in a broader clinical context.

This publication brought those interests together in a particularly meaningful way. It was an opportunity to contribute to actual scientific work that sat directly between technology, science, and pharmaceutical understanding. It also reflected the kind of projects I find most engaging: studies where operational execution, scientific rigor, and practical application all matter.

What made the paper especially compelling was its relevance beyond the device comparison itself. It touched on a bigger question in clinical research: how can we use tools that are already widely available to collect useful, trustworthy data in a way that is easier for patients and more efficient for researchers? That is a question I find both intellectually interesting and professionally important.

For me, work like this shows how clinical research can evolve when scientific thinking and digital tools are brought together carefully. It is one thing to have access to consumer technology; it is another to evaluate it properly, compare it against a trusted reference, and understand where it is useful and where its limits are. That balance between innovation and rigor is something I value highly.

If you are interested in clinical research, digital health, or the practical use of technology in science and pharmaceuticals, I would be pleased to connect. You can get in touch using the form underneath this text.