Validation of Physical Activity Tracking via Android Smartphones Compared to ActiGraph Accelerometer: Laboratory-Based and Free-Living Validation Studies

Abstract

BackgroundThere is increasing interest in using smartphones as stand-alone physical activity monitors via their built-in accelerometers, but there is presently limited data on the validity of this approach.ObjectiveThe purpose of this work was to determine the validity and reliability of 3 Android smartphones for measuring physical activity among midlife and older adults.MethodsA laboratory (study 1) and a free-living (study 2) protocol were conducted. In study 1, individuals engaged in prescribed activities including sedentary (eg, sitting), light (sweeping), moderate (eg, walking 3 mph on a treadmill), and vigorous (eg, jogging 5 mph on a treadmill) activity over a 2-hour period wearing both an ActiGraph and 3 Android smartphones (ie, HTC MyTouch, Google Nexus One, and Motorola Cliq). In the free-living study, individuals engaged in usual daily activities over 7 days while wearing an Android smartphone (Google Nexus One) and an ActiGraph.ResultsStudy 1 included 15 participants (age: mean 55.5, SD 6.6 years; women: 56%, 8/15). Correlations between the ActiGraph and the 3 phones were strong to very strong (ρ=.77-.82). Further, after excluding bicycling and standing, cut-point derived classifications of activities yielded a high percentage of activities classified correctly according to intensity level (eg, 78%-91% by phone) that were similar to the ActiGraph’s percent correctly classified (ie, 91%). Study 2 included 23 participants (age: mean 57.0, SD 6.4 years; women: 74%, 17/23). Within the free-living context, results suggested a moderate correlation (ie, ρ=.59, P<.001) between the raw ActiGraph counts/minute and the phone’s raw counts/minute and a strong correlation on minutes of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA; ie, ρ=.67, P<.001). Results from Bland-Altman plots suggested close mean absolute estimates of sedentary (mean difference=–26 min/day of sedentary behavior) and MVPA (mean difference=–1.3 min/day of MVPA) although there was large variation.ConclusionsOverall, results suggest that an Android smartphone can provide comparable estimates of physical activity to an ActiGraph in both a laboratory-based and free-living context for estimating sedentary and MVPA and that different Android smartphones may reliably confer similar estimates.

Alterations in Daytime and Nighttime Activity in Piglets after Focal and Diffuse Brain Injury

“…Many commercially available products, such as FitBit and Jawbone, use accelerometers in a similar way to allow people to track their own day-and nighttime activity. 6 Several commercial algorithms have been developed that translate human acceleration data into useful activity-level and wake-rest information after verification with PSG data. 7,8 Recent patient studies have used accelerometer data from traumatic brain injury (TBI) patients to document persistent sleep disturbances days and years after mild-to-moderate TBI, with longer 24-h sleep durations, increased nighttime sleep interruptions, and more daytime drowsiness.…”

Large-scale physical activity data reveal worldwide activity inequality

“…2). Recent research has further demonstrated that smartphones provide accurate steps counts 22 and reliable activity estimates in both laboratory and free-living settings 23 . We perform complete-case analyses, which we accompany with sample-correction, stratification, outlier, and balance testing to verify that our conclusions are robust to missing data (see Supplementary Table 1) and biases in age and gender, and hold for both high and middle income countries (see Methods and Extended Data Figs.…”

Feasibility of Using a Smartwatch to Intensively Monitor Patients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Prospective Cohort Study (Preprint)

“…Thresholds for sedentary behavior (<50.92 counts/minute) and moderate-vigorous physical activity (>305.36 counts/minute) were used from a validation study of Android devices. [17] Two authors (TS and RW) first independently analyzed participant feedback to look for common themes and then met and agreed upon common themes.…”