Search

Step-based metrics provide simple measures of ambulatory activity, yet device software either includes undisclosed proprietary step detection algorithms or simply does not compute step-based metrics. We aimed to develop and validate a simple algorithm to accurately detect steps across various ambulatory and nonambulatory activities. Seventy-five adults (21–39 years) completed seven simulated activities of daily living (e.g., sitting, vacuuming, folding laundry) and an incremental treadmill protocol from 0.22 to 2.2 m/s. Directly observed steps were hand-tallied. Participants wore GENEActiv and ActiGraph accelerometers, one of each on their waist and on their nondominant wrist. Raw acceleration (g) signals from the anterior–posterior, medial–lateral, vertical, and vector magnitude directions were assessed separately for each device. Signals were demeaned across all activities and band-pass filtered (0.25, 2.5 Hz). Steps were detected via peak picking, with optimal thresholds (i.e., minimized absolute error from accumulated hand counted) determined by iterating minimum acceleration values to detect steps. Step counts were converted into cadence (steps/minute), and k-fold cross-validation quantified error (root mean squared error [RMSE]). We report optimal thresholds for use of either device on the waist (threshold = 0.0267g) and wrist (threshold = 0.0359g) using the vector magnitude signal. These thresholds yielded low error for the waist (RMSE

Purpose: Develop a direct observation (DO) system to serve as a criterion measure for the calibration of models applied to free-living (FL) accelerometer data. Methods: Ten participants (19.4 ± 0.8 years) were video-recorded during four, one-hour FL sessions in different settings: 1) school, 2) home, 3) community, and 4) physical activity. For each setting, 10-minute clips from three randomly selected sessions were extracted and coded by one expert coder and up to 20 trained coders using the Observer XT software (Noldus, Wageningen, the Netherlands). The coder defines each whole-body movement which was further described with three modifiers: 1) locomotion, 2) activity type, and 3) MET value (used to categorize intensity level). Percent agreement was calculated for intra- and inter-rater reliability. For intra-rater reliability, the criterion coder coded all 12 clips twice, separated by at least one week between coding sessions. For inter-rater reliability, coded clips by trained coders were compared to the expert coder. Intraclass correlations (ICCs) were calculated to assess the agreement of intensity category for intra- and inter-rater comparisons described above. Results: For intra-rater reliability, mean percent agreement ranged from 91.9 ± 3.9% to 100.0 ± 0.0% across all variables in all settings. For inter-rater reliability, mean percent agreement ranged from 88.2 ± 3.5% to 100.0 ± 0.0% across all variables in all settings. ICCs for intensity category ranged from 0.74–1.00 and 0.81–1.00 for intra- and inter-rater comparisons, respectively. Conclusion: The DO system is reliable and feasible to serve as a criterion measure of FL physical activity in young adults to calibrate accelerometers, subsequently improving interpretation of surveillance and intervention research.

We evaluated the accuracy and precision of wearable activity trackers and a pedometer (ATPs) in estimating steps and sedentary time (ST) in free-living settings. Thirty-two healthy men and women (M...

Purpose: To compare the accuracy and precision of a hip-worn accelerometer to predict energy cost during structured activities across motor performance and disease conditions. Methods: 118 adults self-identifying as healthy (n = 44) and those with arthritis (n = 23), multiple sclerosis (n = 18), Parkinson’s disease (n = 17), and stroke (n = 18) underwent measures of motor performance and were categorized into groups: Group 1, usual; Group 2, moderate impairment; and Group 3, severe impairment. The participants completed structured activities while wearing an accelerometer and a portable metabolic measurement system. Accelerometer-predicted energy cost (metabolic equivalent of tasks [METs]) were compared with measured METs and evaluated across functional impairment and disease conditions. Statistical significance was assessed using linear mixed effect models and Bayesian information criteria to assess model fit. Results: All activities’ accelerometer counts per minute (CPM) were 29.5–72.6% less for those with disease compared with those who were healthy. The predicted MET bias was similar across disease, −0.49 (−0.71, −0.27) for arthritis, −0.38 (−0.53, −0.22) for healthy, −0.44 (−0.68, −0.20) for MS, −0.34 (−0.58, −0.09) for Parkinson’s, and −0.30 (−0.54, −0.06) for stroke. For functional impairment, there was a graded reduction in CPM for all activities: Group 1, 1,215 CPM (1,129, 1,301); Group 2, 789 CPM (695, 884); and Group 3, 343 CPM (220, 466). The predicted MET bias revealed similar results across the Group 1, −0.37 METs (−0.52, −0.23); Group 2, −0.44 METs (−0.60, −0.28); and Group 3, −0.33 METs (−0.55, −0.13). The Bayesian information criteria showed a better model fit for functional impairment compared with disease condition. Conclusion: Using functionality to improve accelerometer calibration could decrease variability and warrants further exploration to improve accelerometer prediction of physical activity.

Purpose: To assess the convergent validity of body-worn wearable camera still images (IMGs) for determining posture compared with activPAL (AP) classifications. Methods: The participants (n = 16, mean age 46.7 ± 23.8 years, 9 F) wore an Autographer wearable camera and an AP during three 2-hr free-living visits. IMGs were on average 8.47 s apart and were annotated with output consisting of events, transitory states, unknown, and gaps. The events were annotations that matched AP classifications (sit, stand, and move), consisting of at least three IMGs; the transitory states were posture annotations fewer than three IMGs; the unknowns were IMGs that could not be accurately classified; and the gaps were the time between annotations. For the analyses, the annotation and AP output were converted to 1-s epochs. The total and average length of visits and events were reported in minutes. Bias and 95% confidence intervals for event posture times from IMGs to AP were calculated to determine accuracy and precision. Confusion matrices using total AP posture times were computed to determine misclassification. Results: Forty-three visits were analyzed, with a total visit and event time of 5,027.73 and 4,237.23 min, respectively, and the average visit and event lengths being 116.92 and 98.54 min, respectively. Bias was not statistically significant for sitting, but was significant for standing and movement (0.84, −6.87, and 6.04 min, respectively). From confusion matrices, IMGs correctly classified sitting, standing, and movement (85.69%, 54.87%, and 69.41%, respectively) of total AP time. Conclusion: Wearable camera IMGs provide a good estimation of overall sitting time. Future work is warranted to improve posture classifications and examine the validity of IMGs in assessing activity-type behaviors.

Purpose: Determine the sensitivity of the Misfit Shine™ (MS) to detect changes in physical activity (PA) measures (steps, “points,” kCals) in laboratory (LAB) and free-living (FL) conditions. Methods: Twenty-one participants wore the MS and ActiGraph GT3X+™ accelerometer (AG) at the hip and dominant-wrist during three, one-hour LAB sessions: sedentary (SS), sedentary plus walking (SW), and sedentary plus jogging (SJ). Direct observation (DO) of steps served as the criterion measure. Devices were also worn during two FL conditions: 1) active week (ACT) and 2) inactive week (INACT). For LAB and FL, significant differences were examined using paired t-tests and linear mixed effects models, respectively. Linear mixed effects models were used to estimate differences between MS estimated steps and DO (α ≤ 0.05). Results: For all hip-worn MS measures and wrist-worn MS estimates of steps and “points,” there was a significant increase (p