Criterion validity of an ankle or waist mounted Actigraph GT3X accelerometer in measurement of body position and step count

Anderson, J.; Green, A.; Hall, Harold V.; Yoward, Samantha

doi:10.1016/j.physio.2016.10.077

Cited by 6 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 3 publications

(3 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Despite its growing use in both clinical and research settings, the optimal body position for sensor placement that would provide the most accurate activity category recognition and the corresponding estimate of energy expenditure in older adults remains uncertain. For example, previous studies have used various sensor placements on the body, including the wrist [ 7 - 9 ], thigh [ 10 , 11 ], hip [ 12 - 14 ], arm [ 15 , 16 ] or ankle [ 17 , 18 ], or a combination of multiple placements [ 19 , 20 ]. However, such studies have often been conducted on relatively small samples of young and middle-aged adults.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effect of Sensor Placement and Number on Physical Activity Recognition and Energy Expenditure Estimation in Older Adults: Validation Study

Davoudi¹,

Mardini²,

Nelson³

et al. 2021

JMIR Mhealth Uhealth

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Research has shown the feasibility of human activity recognition using wearable accelerometer devices. Different studies have used varying numbers and placements for data collection using sensors. Objective This study aims to compare accuracy performance between multiple and variable placements of accelerometer devices in categorizing the type of physical activity and corresponding energy expenditure in older adults. Methods In total, 93 participants (mean age 72.2 years, SD 7.1) completed a total of 32 activities of daily life in a laboratory setting. Activities were classified as sedentary versus nonsedentary, locomotion versus nonlocomotion, and lifestyle versus nonlifestyle activities (eg, leisure walk vs computer work). A portable metabolic unit was worn during each activity to measure metabolic equivalents (METs). Accelerometers were placed on 5 different body positions: wrist, hip, ankle, upper arm, and thigh. Accelerometer data from each body position and combinations of positions were used to develop random forest models to assess activity category recognition accuracy and MET estimation. Results Model performance for both MET estimation and activity category recognition were strengthened with the use of additional accelerometer devices. However, a single accelerometer on the ankle, upper arm, hip, thigh, or wrist had only a 0.03-0.09 MET increase in prediction error compared with wearing all 5 devices. Balanced accuracy showed similar trends with slight decreases in balanced accuracy for the detection of locomotion (balanced accuracy decrease range 0-0.01), sedentary (balanced accuracy decrease range 0.05-0.13), and lifestyle activities (balanced accuracy decrease range 0.04-0.08) compared with all 5 placements. The accuracy of recognizing activity categories increased with additional placements (accuracy decrease range 0.15-0.29). Notably, the hip was the best single body position for MET estimation and activity category recognition. Conclusions Additional accelerometer devices slightly enhance activity recognition accuracy and MET estimation in older adults. However, given the extra burden of wearing additional devices, single accelerometers with appropriate placement appear to be sufficient for estimating energy expenditure and activity category recognition in older adults.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effect of Sensor Placement and Number on Physical Activity Recognition and Energy Expenditure Estimation in Older Adults: Validation Study

Davoudi¹,

Mardini²,

Nelson³

et al. 2021

JMIR Mhealth Uhealth

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Sedentary behaviour was assessed using a hip-placed accelerometer in terms of energy expenditure and not sedentary condition defined by both energy expenditure and posture. A hip-placed accelerometer has a tendency to misclassify different body positions, such as lying, sitting and standing [ 40 ]. This may lead to a discrepancy between SED time of accelerometer data when compared with self-reported SED time.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Test–Retest Reliability, Agreement and Criterion Validity of Three Questionnaires for the Assessment of Physical Activity and Sedentary Time in Patients with Myocardial Infarction

Brosved

Heimburg

Hellmark

et al. 2023

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Regular physical activity (PA) and limited sedentary time (SED) are highly recommended in international guidelines for patients after a myocardial infarction (MI). Data on PA and SED are often self-reported in clinical practice and, hence, reliable and valid questionnaires are crucial. This study aimed to assess the test–retest reliability, criterion validity and agreement of two PA and one SED questionnaire commonly used in clinical practice, developed by the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare (BHW) and the Swedish national quality register SWEDEHEART. Data from 57 patients (mean age 66 ± 9.2 years, 42 males) was included in this multi-centre study. The patients answered three questionnaires on PA and SED at seven-day intervals and wore an accelerometer for seven days. Test–retest reliability, criterion validity and agreement were assessed using Spearman’s rho and linearly weighted kappa. Test–retest reliability was moderate for three of the six-sub questions (k = 0.43–0.54) within the PA questionnaires. For criterion validity, the correlation was fair within three of the six sub-questions (r = 0.41–0.50) within the PA questionnaires. The SED questionnaire had low agreement (k = 0.12) and criterion validity (r = 0.30). The studied questionnaires for PA could be used in clinical practice as a screening tool and/or to evaluate the level of PA in patients with an MI. Future research is recommended to develop and/or evaluate SED questionnaires in patients with an MI.

show abstract

“…Nagyon kevés kutatást találtunk, melyekben a csípő mellett a bokán is elhelyezték a műszereket. Ezekben arra a megállapításra jutottak, hogy a bokán elhelyezett készülékekkel a kisebb intenzitású mozgások pontosabban mérhetők elmozdulás szempontjából (Anderson, Green, Hall & Yoward, 2016).…”

Section: Kutatások Az Accelerometer Használatávalunclassified

Tanulók aktivitásának fokozása testnevelés órán a tánc integrációjával

Reiner¹,

Horváth²,

Ekler³

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A kutatásunk témája a táncórai aktivitás mérése testnevelés óra keretében. Célunk volt megállapítani, hogy mely életkorokban és milyen személyiségű tanulók számára jelenthet a tánc előnyös alternatívát. További célunk volt az accelerometer optimális elhelyezésével kapcsolatos tapasztalatgyűjtés, táncos mozgásformák mérése esetén. A kutatásban 4. 5. és 7. évfolyamos diákok vettek részt. A testnevelés és a táncórai aktivitás mérésére accelerometert, a személyiségtípusok vizsgálatának céljából a Hogyan viselkedem? önismereti kérdőívet használtuk. Az elemzéseket évfolyamok, órai tartalmak és személyiségtípusok szerinti bontásban végeztük el. Eredményeink kiértékelése alapján a testnevelés órák MVPA értékei az egyes évfolyamokon kiegyenlített értéket mutattak, de a táncórai MVPA átlagértékek az életkor növekedésével szignifikánsan csökkentek. A versengést elkerülő személyiségtípusú diákok táncórai aktivitási szintje 7. osztályban is magasabb társaiknál, ezért úgy látjuk, hogy a táncórák megfelelő mozgásos alternatívát nyújthatnak a mindennapos mozgás megvalósításának terén. Jelentőségük azért is nagy, mert az iskolai testnevelésbe épített táncoktatás átadhat olyan mozgásismeretet, amely élethosszig tartó mozgásformát jelenthet a versengést elutasító személyiségű emberek számára.

show abstract

Criterion validity of an ankle or waist mounted Actigraph GT3X accelerometer in measurement of body position and step count

Cited by 6 publications

References 3 publications

The Effect of Sensor Placement and Number on Physical Activity Recognition and Energy Expenditure Estimation in Older Adults: Validation Study

The Effect of Sensor Placement and Number on Physical Activity Recognition and Energy Expenditure Estimation in Older Adults: Validation Study

Test–Retest Reliability, Agreement and Criterion Validity of Three Questionnaires for the Assessment of Physical Activity and Sedentary Time in Patients with Myocardial Infarction

Tanulók aktivitásának fokozása testnevelés órán a tánc integrációjával

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About