No abstract

Background Elite athletes and recreational runners rely on the accuracy of global navigation satellite system (GNSS)–enabled sport watches to monitor and regulate training activities. However, there is a lack of scientific evidence regarding the accuracy of such sport watches. Objective The aim was to investigate the accuracy of the recorded distances obtained by eight commercially available sport watches by Apple, Coros, Garmin, Polar, and Suunto when assessed in different areas and at different speeds. Furthermore, potential parameters that affect the measurement quality were evaluated. Methods Altogether, 3 × 12 measurements in urban, forest, and track and field areas were obtained while walking, running, and cycling under various outdoor conditions. Results The selected reference distances ranged from 404.0 m to 4296.9 m. For all the measurement areas combined, the recorded systematic errors (±limits of agreements) ranged between 3.7 (±195.6) m and –101.0 (±231.3) m, and the mean absolute percentage errors ranged from 3.2% to 6.1%. Only the GNSS receivers from Polar showed overall errors <5%. Generally, the recorded distances were significantly underestimated (all P values <.04) and less accurate in the urban and forest areas, whereas they were overestimated but with good accuracy in 75% (6/8) of the sport watches in the track and field area. Furthermore, the data assessed during running showed significantly higher error rates in most devices compared with the walking and cycling activities. Conclusions The recorded distances might be underestimated by up to 9%. However, the use of all investigated sport watches can be recommended, especially for distance recordings in open areas.

Background Sport watches and fitness trackers provide a feasible way of obtaining energy expenditure (EE) estimations in daily life as well as during exercise. However, today’s popular wrist-worn technologies show only poor-to-moderate EE accuracy. Recently, the invention of optical heart rate measurement and the further development of accelerometers in wrist units have opened up the possibility of measuring EE. Objective This study aimed to validate the new multisensory wristwatch Polar Vantage and its EE estimation in healthy individuals during low-to-high-intensity activities against indirect calorimetry. Methods Overall, 30 volunteers (15 females; mean age 29.5 [SD 5.1] years; mean height 1.7 [SD 0.8] m; mean weight 67.5 [SD 8.7] kg; mean maximal oxygen uptake 53.4 [SD 6.8] mL/min·kg) performed 7 activities—ranging in intensity from sitting to playing floorball—in a semistructured indoor environment for 10 min each, with 2-min breaks in between. These activities were performed while wearing the Polar Vantage M wristwatch and the MetaMax 3B spirometer. Results After EE estimation, a mean (SD) of 69.1 (42.7) kcal and 71.4 (37.8) kcal per 10-min activity were reported for the MetaMax 3B and the Polar Vantage, respectively, with a strong correlation of r=0.892 (P<.001). The systematic bias was 2.3 kcal (3.3%), with 37.8 kcal limits of agreement. The lowest mean absolute percentage errors were reported during the sitting and reading activities (9.1%), and the highest error rates during household chores (31.4%). On average, 59.5% of the mean EE values obtained by the Polar Vantage were within ±20% of accuracy when compared with the MetaMax 3B. The activity intensity quantified by perceived exertion (odds ratio [OR] 2.028; P<.001) and wrist circumference (OR −1.533; P=.03) predicted 29% of the error rates within the Polar Vantage. Conclusions The Polar Vantage has a statistically moderate-to-good accuracy in EE estimation that is activity dependent. During sitting and reading activities, the EE estimation is very good, whereas during nonsteady activities that require wrist and arm movement, the EE accuracy is only moderate. However, compared with other available wrist-worn EE monitors, the Polar Vantage can be recommended, as it performs among the best.

No abstract

Introduction High physical and cognitive strain, high pressure, and sleep deficit are part of daily life for military professionals and civilians working in physiologically demanding environments. As a result, cognitive and physical capacities decline and the risk of illness, injury, or accidents increases. Such unfortunate outcomes could be prevented by tracking real-time physiological information, revealing individuals’ objective fatigue levels. Oculometrics, and especially eyeblinks, have been shown to be promising biomarkers that reflect fatigue development. Head-mounted optical eye-trackers are a common method to monitor these oculometrics. However, studies measuring eyeblink detection in real-life settings have been lacking in the literature. Therefore, this study aims to validate two current mobile optical eye-trackers in an unrestrained military training environment. Materials and Method Three male participants (age 20.0 ± 1.0) of the Swiss Armed Forces participated in this study by wearing three optical eye-trackers, two VPS16s (Viewpointsystem GmbH, Vienna, Austria) and one Pupil Core (Pupil Labs GmbH, Berlin, Germany), during four military training events: Healthcare education, orienteering, shooting, and military marching. Software outputs were analyzed against a visual inspection (VI) of the video recordings of participants’ eyes via the respective software. Absolute and relative blink numbers were provided. Each blink detected by the software was classified as a “true blink” (TB) when it occurred in the software output and the VI at the same time, as a “false blink” (FB) when it occurred in the software but not in the VI, and as a “missed blink” (MB) when the software failed to detect a blink that occurred in the VI. The FBs were further examined for causes of the incorrect recordings, and they were divided into four categories: “sunlight,” “movements,” “lost pupil,” and “double-counted”. Blink frequency (i.e., blinks per minute) was also analyzed. Results Overall, 49.3% and 72.5% of registered eyeblinks were classified as TBs for the VPS16 and Pupil Core, respectively. The VPS16 recorded 50.7% of FBs and accounted for 8.5% of MBs, while the Pupil Core recorded 27.5% of FBs and accounted for 55.5% of MBs. The majority of FBs—45.5% and 73.9% for the VPS16 and Pupil Core, respectively—were erroneously recorded due to participants’ eye movements while looking up, down, or to one side. For blink frequency analysis, systematic biases (±limits of agreement) stood at 23.3 (±43.5) and −4.87 (±14.1) blinks per minute for the VPS16 and Pupil Core, respectively. Significant differences in systematic bias between devices and the respective VIs were found for nearly all activities (P &lt; .05). Conclusion An objective physiological monitoring of fatigue is necessary for soldiers as well as civil professionals who are exposed to higher risks when their cognitive or physical capacities weaken. However, optical eye-trackers’ accuracy has not been specified under field conditions—especially not in monitoring fatigue. The significant overestimation and underestimation of the VPS16 and Pupil Core, respectively, demonstrate the general difficulty of blink detection in the field.