Google is rolling out Pixel Watch 3's 'loss of pulse detection' feature in the US

Engadget - Apr 9th, 2025

Google has started rolling out a life-saving feature for Pixel Watch 3 users in the US, which detects the loss of pulse and automatically contacts emergency services if necessary. This feature was initially launched in several European countries but only received approval from the US Food and Drug Administration in February this year. The technology uses advanced passive algorithms to monitor the presence of a pulse every second, and if a pulse is not detected, active sensors are engaged to verify the absence of a pulse, ensuring it isn't a false alarm. The feature then initiates a series of escalating alerts to prompt user response before calling for help if the user remains unresponsive.

This development holds significant implications for personal health monitoring, particularly in emergencies such as cardiac or respiratory arrest, where timely intervention is critical. Google highlights the importance of this feature given that half of such medical emergencies are unwitnessed. By integrating this capability into the Pixel Watch 3, Google aims to enhance the device's utility in safeguarding user health, potentially reducing the risk of long-term damage or fatality from unaddressed medical crises. This move reflects a broader trend of incorporating advanced health monitoring technologies into consumer electronics, marking a noteworthy step in digital health innovation.

Google Emergency Services Health Technology Fda Approval Pixel Watch 3 Loss Of Pulse Detection

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

6.0

Moderately Fair

Read with skepticism

The article provides a timely and generally accurate overview of the Pixel Watch 3's new loss of pulse detection feature, highlighting its potential life-saving benefits. However, it lacks balance and transparency, as it does not explore potential limitations or cite authoritative sources. The clarity of the article is strong, although further simplification of technical terms could improve understanding. While the topic is of significant public interest and has the potential to impact consumer behavior, the article could be more engaging and impactful by including diverse perspectives and addressing potential controversies. Overall, the article serves as an informative piece for readers interested in wearable technology and health monitoring, but it would benefit from a more comprehensive and balanced approach.

Accuracy

The article is largely accurate in its description of the new feature being rolled out by Google for the Pixel Watch 3. It correctly states that the loss of pulse detection feature is now available in the US and highlights its functionality, which involves detecting the absence of a pulse and contacting emergency services. However, the claim regarding the use of 'concurrent passive algorithms' to check for a pulse once a second requires further verification, as this specific detail is not confirmed in the sources. Additionally, while the article mentions FDA approval, it does not specify the exact date of approval, which could be important for accuracy.

Balance

The article presents a single perspective focused on the benefits and technological advancements of the Pixel Watch 3's new feature. It lacks a balanced viewpoint, as it does not discuss potential limitations or challenges associated with the technology, such as false positives or the reliability of emergency services' response. Including perspectives from healthcare professionals or tech critics could provide a more rounded view of the feature's implications.

Clarity

The article is generally clear and concise, explaining the feature's function and potential benefits in straightforward language. However, it could benefit from a more detailed breakdown of technical terms like 'concurrent passive algorithms' to aid reader understanding. The structure is logical, but more detailed explanations of the alert phases and sensor technology could enhance clarity.

Source quality

The article does not reference specific sources or studies to back its claims, which affects the perceived credibility of the information. While it mentions Google's statements, there is no direct attribution or citation of official press releases or scientific studies. Including authoritative sources such as FDA documentation or expert opinions would enhance the article's reliability.

Transparency

The article lacks transparency in terms of its sources and the methodology behind the technology described. It does not disclose how the information was obtained or whether there are any potential conflicts of interest. Providing more context about the development and testing of the feature, as well as Google's role in the reporting, would improve transparency.