Browse

You are looking at 81 - 90 of 172 items for :

  • Journal for the Measurement of Physical Behaviour x
  • Sport and Exercise Science/Kinesiology x
  • Psychology and Behavior in Sport/Exercise x
  • Refine by Access: All Content x
Clear All
Restricted access

Validation of Body-Worn Sensors for Gait Analysis During a 2-min Walk Test in Children

Vincent Shieh, Cris Zampieri, Ashwini Sansare, John Collins, Thomas C. Bulea, and Minal Jain

Introduction : Instrumented gait mat systems have been regarded as one of the gold standard methods for measuring spatiotemporal gait parameters. However, their portable walkways confine walking to a restricted area and limit the number of gait cycles collected. Wearable inertial sensors are a potential alternative that allow more natural walking behavior and have fewer space restrictions. The objective of this pilot study was to establish the concurrent validity of body-worn sensors against the portable walkway system in older children. Methods : Twenty-one participants (10 males) 7–17 years old performed 2-min walk tests at a self-selected and fast pace in a 25-m-long hallway, while wearing three inertial sensors. Data collection were synchronized between devices and the portions of the walk when subjects passed on the walkway were used to compare gait speed, stride length, gait cycle duration, cadence, and double support time. Regression models and Bland–Altman analysis were completed to determine agreement between systems for the selected gait parameters. Results : Gait speed, cadence, gait cycle duration, and stride length as measured by inertial sensors demonstrated strong agreement overall. Double support time was found to have lower validity due to a combined bias of age, height, weight, and walking pace. Conclusion : These results support the validity of wearable inertial sensors in measuring gait speed, cadence, gait cycle duration, and stride length in children 7 years old and above during a 2-min walking test. Future studies are warranted with a broader age range to thoroughly represent the pediatric population.

Restricted access

Comparison of activPAL and Actiwatch for Estimations of Time in Bed in Free-Living Adults

Mary C. Hidde, Kate Lyden, Josiane L. Broussard, Kim L. Henry, Julia L. Sharp, Elizabeth A. Thomas, Corey A. Rynders, and Heather J. Leach

Introduction: Patterns of physical activity (PA) and time in bed (TIB) across the 24-hr cycle have important implications for many health outcomes; therefore, wearable accelerometers are often implemented in behavioral research to measure free-living PA and TIB. Two accelerometers, the activPAL and Actiwatch, are common accelerometers for measuring PA (activPAL) and TIB (Actiwatch), respectively. Both accelerometers have the capacity to measure TIB, but the degree to which these accelerometers agree is not clear. Therefore, this study compared estimates of TIB between activPAL and the Actiwatch accelerometers. Methods: Participants (mean ± SDage = 39.8 ± 7.6 years) with overweight or obesity (N = 83) wore an activPAL and Actiwatch continuously for 7 days, 24 hr per day. TIB was assessed using manufacturer-specific algorithms. Repeated-measures mixed-effect models and Bland–Altman plots were used to compare the activPAL and Actiwatch TIB estimates. Results: Statistical differences between TIB assessed by activPAL versus Actiwatch (p < .001) were observed. There was not a significant interaction between accelerometer and day of wear (p = .87). The difference in TIB between accelerometers ranged from −72.9 ± 15.7 min (Day 7) to −98.6 ± 14.5 min (Day 3), with the Actiwatch consistently estimating longer TIB compared with the activPAL. Conclusion: Data generated by the activPAL and Actiwatch accelerometers resulted in divergent estimates of TIB. Future studies should continue to explore the validity of activity monitoring accelerometers for estimating TIB.

Restricted access

Concurrent Agreement Between ActiGraph and activPAL for Measuring Physical Activity in Pregnant Women and Office Workers

Melissa A. Jones, Sara J. Diesel, Bethany Barone Gibbs, and Kara M. Whitaker

Introduction: Current best practice for objective measurement of sedentary behavior and moderate-to-vigorous intensity physical activity (MVPA) requires two separate devices. This study assessed concurrent agreement between the ActiGraph GT3X and the activPAL3 micro for measuring MVPA to determine if activPAL can accurately measure MVPA in addition to its known capacity to measure sedentary behavior. Methods: Forty participants from two studies, including pregnant women (n = 20) and desk workers (n = 20), provided objective measurement of MVPA from waist-worn ActiGraph GT3X and thigh-worn activPAL micro3. MVPA from the GT3X was compared with MVPA from the activPAL using metabolic equivalents of task (MET)- and step-based data across three epochs. Intraclass correlation coefficient and Bland–Altman analyses, overall and by study sample, compared MVPA minutes per day across methods. Results: Mean estimates of activPAL MVPA ranged from 22.7 to 35.2 (MET based) and 19.7 to 25.8 (step based) minutes per day, compared with 31.4 min/day (GT3X). MET-based MVPA had high agreement with GT3X, intraclass correlation coefficient ranging from .831 to .875. Bland–Altman analyses revealed minimal bias between 15- and 30-s MET-based MVPA and GT3X MVPA (−3.77 to 8.63 min/day, p > .10) but with wide limits of agreement (greater than ±27 min). Step-based MVPA had moderate to high agreement (intraclass correlation coefficient: .681–.810), but consistently underestimated GT3X MVPA (bias: 5.62–11.74 min/day, p < .02). For all methods, activPAL appears to better estimate GT3X at lower quantities of MVPA. Results were similar when repeated separately by pregnant women and desk workers. Conclusion: activPAL can measure MVPA in addition to sedentary behavior, providing an option for concurrent, single device monitoring. MET-based MVPA using 30-s activPAL epochs provided the best estimate of GT3X MVPA in pregnant women and desk workers.

Restricted access

Validity of a Novel Algorithm to Detect Bedtime, Wake Time, and Sleep Time in Adults

Kyle R. Leister, Jessica Garay, and Tiago V. Barreira

Purpose: To determine accuracy of activPAL Technologies’ CREA algorithm to assess bedtime, wake time, and sleep time. Methods: As part of a larger study, 104 participants recorded nightly sleep logs (LOGs) and wore the activPAL accelerometer at the thigh and ActiGraph accelerometer at the hip for 24 hr/day, for seven consecutive days. For sleep LOGs, participants recorded nightly bed and daily wake times. Previously validated ActiGraph, proprietary activPAL, and the Winkler sleep algorithm were used to compute sleep variables. Eighty-seven participants provided 2+ days of valid data. Pearson correlations, paired samples t tests, and equivalency tests were used to examine relationships and differences between methods (activPAL vs. ActiGraph, activPAL vs. LOG, and activPAL vs. Winkler algorithm). Results: For screened data, moderately high to high correlations but significant mean differences were found between activPAL versus ActiGraph for bedtime (t 86 = −6.80, p ≤ .01, r = .84), wake time (t 86 = 4.80, p ≤ .01, r = .93), and sleep time (t 86 = 7.99, p ≤ .01, r = .88). activPAL versus LOG comparisons also yielded significant mean differences and moderately high to high correlations for bedtime (t 86 = −4.68, p ≤ .01, r = .82), wake time (t 86 = 8.14, p ≤ .01, r = .93), and sleep time (t 86 = 8.60, p ≤ .01, r = .72). Equivalency testing revealed that equivalency could not be claimed between activPAL versus LOG or activPAL versus ActiGraph comparisons, though the activPAL and Winkler algorithm were equivalent. Conclusion: The activPAL algorithm overestimated sleep time by detecting earlier bedtimes and later wake times. Because of the significant differences between algorithms, bedtime, wake time, and sleep time are not interchangeable between methods.

Restricted access

Validity of the Garmin Vivofit Jr. to Measure Physical Activity During a Youth After-School Program

Karissa L. Peyer and Kara C. Hamilton

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the validity of the step count and Active Minutes features of the Garmin Vivofit Jr. 2 consumer activity monitor. Methods: Participants included 35 students (age 8–11) enrolled in an after-school physical activity (PA) and nutrition program. Participants wore an ActiGraph GT3x+ monitor on their waist and the Vivofit monitor on their wrist during the PA portion of the program. Data were collected across multiple sessions, resulting in 158 unique pairs of data. Pearson correlation, mean absolute percent error, and equivalence testing were performed to compare step count and minutes of activity (Vivofit Active Minutes vs ActiGraph moderate to vigorous PA) between the two monitors. Results: Moderate correlations were found between the monitors for steps (r = .65) and minutes (r = .43). Mean absolute percent error was 26% for steps and 43% for minutes, suggesting that there were high amounts of individual error. Equivalence testing showed significant agreement between the monitors for steps (p = .046), but not for minutes (p = .98). Conclusion: The Garmin Vivofit Jr. 2 shows acceptable validity for measurement of steps at a group level in a field-based setting, although the amount of individual variability must be considered. The Vivofit Jr. 2 was not valid for measurement of minutes of activity.

Restricted access

Volume 5 (2022): Issue 1 (Mar 2022)

Open access

COVID-19 Highlights the Potential for a More Dynamic Approach to Physical Activity Surveillance

Alex V. Rowlands, Pedro F. Saint-Maurice, and Philippa M. Dall

Restricted access

Comparison of the activPAL CREA and VANE Algorithms for Characterization of Posture and Activity in Free-Living Adults

Alexander H.K. Montoye, Joseph D. Vondrasek, Sylvia E. Neph, Neil Basu, Lorna Paul, Eva-Maria Bachmair, Kristian Stefanov, and Stuart R. Gray

Background: The activPAL accelerometer is used widely for assessment of free-living activity and postural data. Two algorithms, VANE (traditional) and CREA (new), are available to analyze activPAL data, but the comparability of metrics derived from these algorithms is unknown. Purpose: To determine the comparability of physical activity and sedentary behavior metrics from activPAL’s VANE and CREA algorithms. Methods: Individuals enrolled in the LIFT trial (n = 354) wore an activPAL accelerometer on the right thigh continuously for 7 days on four occasions, resulting in 5,851 valid days of data for analysis. Daily data were downloaded in the PALbatch software using the VANE and CREA algorithms. Correlations, mean absolute percentage error, effect sizes (ES), and equivalence (within 3%) were calculated to evaluate comparability of the algorithms. Results: Steps, activity score, stepping time, bouts of stepping, and upright time metrics were statistically equivalent, highly correlated (r ≥ .98), and had small mean absolute percentage errors (≤2.5%) and trivial ES (ES < 0.07) between algorithms. Stepping bouts also had good comparability. Conversely, sedentary-upright and upright-sedentary transitions and bouts of sitting were not equivalent, with large mean absolute percentage differences (17.4%–141.3%) and small to very large ES (ES = 0.45–3.80) between algorithms. Conclusions: Stepping and upright metrics are highly comparable between activPAL’s VANE and CREA algorithms, but sitting metrics had large differences as the VANE algorithm does not capture nonwear or differentiate between sitting and lying down. Researchers using the activPAL should explicitly describe the analytic algorithms used in their work to facilitate data pooling and comparability across studies.

Open access

Considerations for the Use of Consumer-Grade Wearables and Smartphones in Population Surveillance of Physical Activity

Tessa Strain, Katrien Wijndaele, Matthew Pearce, and Søren Brage

As smartphone and wearable device ownership increase, interest in their utility to monitor physical activity has risen concurrently. Numerous examples of the application of wearables in clinical and epidemiological research settings already exist. However, whether these devices are all suitable for physical activity surveillance is open for debate. In this commentary, we respond to a commentary by Mair et al. () and discuss four key issues specifically relevant to surveillance that we believe need to be tackled before consumer wearables can be considered for this measurement purpose: representative sampling, representative wear time, validity and reliability, and compatibility between devices. A recurring theme is how to deal with systematic biases by demographic groups. We suggest some potential solutions to the issues of concern such as providing individuals with standardized devices, considering summary metrics of physical activity less prone to wear time biases, and the development of a framework to harmonize estimates between device types and their inbuilt algorithms. We encourage collaborative efforts from researchers and consumer wearable manufacturers in this area. In the meantime, we caution against the use of consumer wearable device data for inference of population-level activity without the consideration of these issues.

Open access

Integration of Report-Based Methods to Enhance the Interpretation of Monitor-Based Research: Results From the Free-Living Activity Study for Health Project

Nicholas R. Lamoureux, Paul R. Hibbing, Charles Matthews, and Gregory J. Welk

Accelerometry-based monitors are commonly utilized to evaluate physical activity behavior, but the lack of contextual information limits the interpretability and value of the data. Integration of report-based with monitor-based data allows the complementary strengths of the two approaches to be used to triangulate information and to create a more complete picture of free-living physical behavior. This investigation utilizes data collected from the Free-Living Activity Study for Health to test the feasibility of annotating monitor data with contextual information from the Activities Completed Over Time in 24-hr (ACT24) previous-day recall. The evaluation includes data from 134 adults who completed the 24-hr free-living monitoring protocol and retrospective 24-hr recall. Analyses focused on the relative agreement of energy expenditure estimates between ACT24 and two monitor-based methods (ActiGraph and SenseWear Armband). Daily energy expenditure estimates from ACT24 were equivalent to the reference device-based estimate. Minute-level agreement of energy expenditure between ACT24 and device-based methods was moderate and was similar to the agreement between two different monitor-based methods. This minute-level agreement between ACT24 and device-based methods demonstrates the feasibility and utility of integrating self-report with accelerometer data to provide richer context on the monitored behaviors. This type of integration offers promise for advancing the assessment of physical behavior by aiding in data interpretation and providing opportunities to improve physical activity assessment methods under free-living conditions.