Some health enthusiasts swear by smartwatches as a way to monitor stress levels, but a recent study calls into question that common usage. The study, published in the Journal of Psychopathology and Clinical Science, claims that such watches display a very limited ability to actually communicate what a person’s psychological state is. Sometimes, a watch may think the user is stressed when they’re really just excited about something, researchers say.
The report looked at nearly 800 students who wore a Garmin Vivosmart 4 smartwatch and measured their self-reported emotional states against the metrics collected by the wearables. According to the study, the self-reports of the watch-wearers and the analyses provided by the watches bore little resemblance to one another. It notes:
We investigated the concurrent overlap between self-report and wearable sensor data measuring stress, tiredness, and sleep. For the majority of individuals in our sample, we found that self-report and physiological measures of stress show very weak to no associations. These results raise several questions about differences between data sources and potential measurement issues.
Garmin advertises a stress-tracking capability for its smartwatches on its website. “Stress levels (0–100) are estimated by the Firstbeat Analytics engine, primarily using a combination of HR and HRV data. This data is recorded by the optical heart rate sensor on the back of your device.”
However, Garmin seems to admit that the quality and character of stress can be difficult to measure: “Public speaking and running up a flight of stairs can both send your heart racing, but the underlying reasons why are fundamentally different,” its website notes. The company suggests that wearing the watch more frequently can result in better measurements. “You can improve the quality of the insight gained by wearing your device as much as possible, especially while you sleep, because that is when your stress levels will typically be lowest,” the site states. “This helps create a better understanding of the full range of stress and relaxation states that you experience.”
In an interview with The Guardian, one of the study’s authors, Eiko Fried, said that the correlation between the self-reported stress scores that were collected as part of the study and the readings provided by the smartwatches was “basically zero.”
“This is no surprise to us given that the watch measures heart rate and heart rate doesn’t have that much to do with the emotion you’re experiencing – it also goes up for sexual arousal or joyful experiences,” he told the outlet. “The findings raise important questions about what wearable data can or can’t tell us about mental states,” he continued. “Be careful and don’t live by your smartwatch – these are consumer devices, not medical devices.”
The study’s topic has a diverse research history. A 2023 meta-analysis of studies about wearables and stress management found that “the effect of wearable-based approaches on alleviating or reducing stress” had “not been analyzed” and that most studies up until that point had “focused on presenting overviews of wearable devices.” Another study published by researchers at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam in 2023 found, much like the recent psychology study, that smartwatches frequently failed to distinguish between excitement and stress. Gizmodo reached out to Garmin for comment on the recent study and will update this story if it responds.
While the study claims Garmin’s wearable didn’t do much to measure stress, researchers found it seemed to provide decent metrics in other arenas. The report says that the watches were very good at measuring sleep, although it notes that “associations were weaker for tiredness.”
Source link
#Study #Finds #Smartwatches #Arent #Good #Measuring #Stress
![FCC Chairman Wants to Repeal a Key Rule That Would Fundamentally Change Broadcast News
Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr wants to repeal a rule that has prevented a select handful of broadcasters from taking full control of the media landscape. Back in 2004, Congress instructed the FCC to enact a national ownership cap that would bar any one broadcast station owner from reaching more than 39% of American households. For more than 20 years, the rule has kept mega mergers in the TV broadcasting industry from gobbling up the entire media ecosystem. Now, Carr is proposing to repeal that national ownership cap rule, which, if successful, would mean broadcast TV giants will pretty much have a green light for mergers, even if it meant that one company would gain access to most of the media landscape. Carr expressed his intentions in an op-ed published by the far-right organization Breitbart. In the op-ed, he claimed that the cap was once helpful in protecting local news stations, but now it was becoming an obstacle as they compete with national news, large streamers, and social media giants.
Instead of a blanket rule, Carr wants to create a new “case-by-case approach.” “Previously, the cap operated as a blanket prohibition on any and all deals that would combine stations in excess of the 39 percent limit—regardless of whether it was a good deal or a bad one for the country,” Carr wrote in the op-ed. “Our new proposal would allow the FCC to approve deals that exceed the 39 percent cap, but only if doing so would promote the public interest.”
Major broadcasters have been lobbying for a change to the rule for quite some time now. One such mega TV broadcasting company that lobbied for the rule change is Nexstar. Earlier this year, the FCC granted Nexstar a waiver for the 39% national ownership cap rule and approved its acquisition of rival Tegna. The merger is still currently facing court challenges over antitrust claims, but if it is finalized, then Nexstar is estimated to expand its reach to at least 60% of American households. Sinclair, another Trump-allied major broadcaster that was behind a particularly infamous PR debacle during Trump’s first administration, is also eyeing a merger and commended the proposed rule change as “common sense.” Both companies also famously refused to air Jimmy Kimmel’s show on their channels late last year after the late-night host’s comments about Charlie Kirk drew ire from the Trump administration.
[embed]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fHfgU8oMSo[/embed] The FCC will vote on eliminating the rule on August 6th. There are three commissioners, two Republicans and one Democrat. The lone Democratic FCC Commissioner, Anna Gomez, took to X to voice her staunch opposition. “The FCC just announced it will move forward with its unlawful effort to hand control of the public airwaves to billionaire buddies of this administration,” Gomez wrote. “This will destroy local newsrooms, silence community reporting, and drive-up costs for American families.” Even if the action passes the FCC vote, it’s likely to receive pushback from both sides of the aisle in Congress. “Trump’s FCC Chair is trying to illegally rewrite the rules to make it easier for billionaires to line their own pockets while jacking up costs and controlling what Americans watch,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren said in a statement. “After rubber-stamping the Nexstar-Tegna megamerger, this looks like the Trump administration’s latest attempt to roll out the red carpet for more antitrust disasters.”
Critics believe that because the rule was created following Congress’s action, it is up to Congress to determine if it should be retired. But Carr insists that the FCC has the authority to modify or repeal the rule. #FCC #Chairman #Repeal #Key #Rule #Fundamentally #Change #Broadcast #NewsBrendan carr,broadcast television,FCC FCC Chairman Wants to Repeal a Key Rule That Would Fundamentally Change Broadcast News
Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr wants to repeal a rule that has prevented a select handful of broadcasters from taking full control of the media landscape. Back in 2004, Congress instructed the FCC to enact a national ownership cap that would bar any one broadcast station owner from reaching more than 39% of American households. For more than 20 years, the rule has kept mega mergers in the TV broadcasting industry from gobbling up the entire media ecosystem. Now, Carr is proposing to repeal that national ownership cap rule, which, if successful, would mean broadcast TV giants will pretty much have a green light for mergers, even if it meant that one company would gain access to most of the media landscape. Carr expressed his intentions in an op-ed published by the far-right organization Breitbart. In the op-ed, he claimed that the cap was once helpful in protecting local news stations, but now it was becoming an obstacle as they compete with national news, large streamers, and social media giants.
Instead of a blanket rule, Carr wants to create a new “case-by-case approach.” “Previously, the cap operated as a blanket prohibition on any and all deals that would combine stations in excess of the 39 percent limit—regardless of whether it was a good deal or a bad one for the country,” Carr wrote in the op-ed. “Our new proposal would allow the FCC to approve deals that exceed the 39 percent cap, but only if doing so would promote the public interest.”
Major broadcasters have been lobbying for a change to the rule for quite some time now. One such mega TV broadcasting company that lobbied for the rule change is Nexstar. Earlier this year, the FCC granted Nexstar a waiver for the 39% national ownership cap rule and approved its acquisition of rival Tegna. The merger is still currently facing court challenges over antitrust claims, but if it is finalized, then Nexstar is estimated to expand its reach to at least 60% of American households. Sinclair, another Trump-allied major broadcaster that was behind a particularly infamous PR debacle during Trump’s first administration, is also eyeing a merger and commended the proposed rule change as “common sense.” Both companies also famously refused to air Jimmy Kimmel’s show on their channels late last year after the late-night host’s comments about Charlie Kirk drew ire from the Trump administration.
[embed]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fHfgU8oMSo[/embed] The FCC will vote on eliminating the rule on August 6th. There are three commissioners, two Republicans and one Democrat. The lone Democratic FCC Commissioner, Anna Gomez, took to X to voice her staunch opposition. “The FCC just announced it will move forward with its unlawful effort to hand control of the public airwaves to billionaire buddies of this administration,” Gomez wrote. “This will destroy local newsrooms, silence community reporting, and drive-up costs for American families.” Even if the action passes the FCC vote, it’s likely to receive pushback from both sides of the aisle in Congress. “Trump’s FCC Chair is trying to illegally rewrite the rules to make it easier for billionaires to line their own pockets while jacking up costs and controlling what Americans watch,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren said in a statement. “After rubber-stamping the Nexstar-Tegna megamerger, this looks like the Trump administration’s latest attempt to roll out the red carpet for more antitrust disasters.”
Critics believe that because the rule was created following Congress’s action, it is up to Congress to determine if it should be retired. But Carr insists that the FCC has the authority to modify or repeal the rule. #FCC #Chairman #Repeal #Key #Rule #Fundamentally #Change #Broadcast #NewsBrendan carr,broadcast television,FCC](https://gizmodo.com/app/uploads/2026/07/GettyImages-2262359639-1280x888.jpg)



Post Comment