Marco Giurgiu, Carina Nigg, Janis Fiedler, Irina Timm, Ellen Rulf, Johannes B.J. Bussmann, Claudio R. Nigg, Alexander Woll, and Ulrich W. Ebner-Priemer
Purpose: To raise attention to the quality of published validation protocols while comparing (in)consistencies and providing an overview on wearables, and whether they show promise or not. Methods: Searches from five electronic databases were included concerning the following eligibility criteria: (a) laboratory conditions with humans (<18 years), (b) device outcome must belong to one dimension of the 24-hr physical behavior construct (i.e., intensity, posture/activity type outcomes, biological state), (c) must include a criterion measure, and (d) published in a peer-reviewed English language journal between 1980 and 2021. Results: Out of 13,285 unique search results, 123 articles were included. In 86 studies, children <13 years were recruited, whereas in 26 studies adolescents (13–18 years) were recruited. Most studies (73.2%) validated an intensity outcome such as energy expenditure; only 20.3% and 13.8% of studies validated biological state or posture/activity type outcomes, respectively. We identified 14 wearables that had been used to validate outcomes from two or three different dimensions. Most (n = 72) of the identified 88 wearables were only validated once. Risk of bias assessment resulted in 7.3% of studies being classified as “low risk,” 28.5% as “some concerns,” and 71.5% as “high risk.” Conclusion: Overall, laboratory validation studies of wearables are characterized by low methodological quality, large variability in design, and a focus on intensity. No identified wearable provides valid results across all three dimensions of the 24-hr physical behavior construct. Future research should more strongly aim at biological state and posture/activity type outcomes outcomes, and strive for standardized protocols embedded in a validation framework.
Jeong Ah Kim, Sungwoo Park, Linda Fetters, Sandrah P. Eckel, Masayoshi Kubo, and Barbara Sargent
This study quantified the spatial exploration of 13 infants born very and extremely preterm (PT) at 4 months corrected age as they learned that moving their feet vertically to cross a virtual threshold activated an infant kick-activated mobile and compared results to 15 infants born full-term (FT) from a previously published study. Spatial exploration was quantified using two general spatial exploration variables (exploration volume and exploration path), two task-specific spatial variables (duration of time in the task-specific region of interest and vertical variance of kicks), and one non-task-specific spatial variable (horizontal variance of kicks). The infants born PT, similar to FT, increased their general spatial exploration and duration in the region of interest and did not change the vertical and horizontal variances of kicks. However, the infants born PT, compared to FT, spent less time in the task-specific region of interest and had a greater non-task-specific horizontal variance throughout the task. This may indicate that infants born PT and FT exhibit similar general spatial exploration, but infants born PT exhibit less task-specific spatial exploration. Future research is necessary to determine the contribution of learning and motor abilities to the differences in task-specific exploration between infants born PT and FT.
Alexander H.K. Montoye, Olivia Coolman, Amberly Keyes, Megan Ready, Jaedyn Shelton, Ethan Willett, and Brian C. Rider
Background: Given the popularity of thigh-worn accelerometers, it is important to understand their reliability and validity. Purpose: Our study evaluated laboratory validity and free-living intermonitor reliability of the Fibion monitor and free-living intermonitor reliability of the activPAL monitor. Free-living comparability of the Fibion and activPAL monitors was also assessed. Methods: Nineteen adult participants wore Fibion monitors on both thighs while performing 11 activities in a laboratory setting. Then, participants wore Fibion and activPAL monitors on both thighs for 3 days during waking hours. Accuracy of the Fibion monitor was determined for recognizing lying/sitting, standing, slow walking, fast walking, jogging, and cycling. For the 3-day free-living wear, outputs from the Fibion monitors were compared, with similar analyses conducted for the activPAL monitors. Finally, free-living comparability of the Fibion and activPAL monitors was determined for nonwear, sitting, standing, stepping, and cycling. Results: The Fibion monitor had an overall accuracy of 85%–89%, with high accuracy (94%–100%) for detecting prone and supine lying, sitting, and standing but some misclassification among ambulatory activities and for left-/right-side lying with standing. Intermonitor reliability was similar for the Fibion and activPAL monitors, with best reliability for sitting but poorer reliability for activities performed least often (e.g., cycling). The Fibion and activPAL monitors were not equivalent for most tested metrics. Conclusion: The Fibion monitor appears suitable for assessment of sedentary and nonsedentary waking postures, and the Fibion and activPAL monitors have comparable intermonitor reliability. However, studies using thigh-worn monitors should use the same monitor brand worn on the same leg to optimize reliability.
Tommy Slater, William J.A. Mode, Mollie G. Pinkney, John Hough, Ruth M. James, Craig Sale, Lewis J. James, and David J. Clayton
Acute morning fasted exercise may create a greater negative 24-hr energy balance than the same exercise performed after a meal, but research exploring fasted evening exercise is limited. This study assessed the effects of 7-hr fasting before evening exercise on energy intake, metabolism, and performance. Sixteen healthy males and females (n = 8 each) completed two randomized, counterbalanced trials. Participants consumed a standardized breakfast (08:30) and lunch (11:30). Two hours before exercise (16:30), participants consumed a meal (543 ± 86 kcal; FED) or remained fasted (FAST). Exercise involved 30-min cycling (∼60% VO2peak) and a 15-min performance test (∼85% VO2peak; 18:30). Ad libitum energy intake was assessed 15 min postexercise. Subjective appetite was measured throughout. Energy intake was 99 ± 162 kcal greater postexercise (p < .05), but 443 ± 128 kcal lower over the day (p < .001) in FAST. Appetite was elevated between the preexercise meal and ad libitum meal in FAST (p < .001), with no further differences (p ≥ .458). Fat oxidation was greater (+3.25 ± 1.99 g), and carbohydrate oxidation was lower (−9.16 ± 5.80 g) during exercise in FAST (p < .001). Exercise performance was 3.8% lower in FAST (153 ± 57 kJ vs. 159 ± 58 kJ, p < .05), with preexercise motivation, energy, readiness, and postexercise enjoyment also lower in FAST (p < .01). Fasted evening exercise reduced net energy intake and increased fat oxidation compared to exercise performed 2 hr after a meal. However, fasting also reduced voluntary performance, motivation, and exercise enjoyment. Future studies are needed to examine the long-term effects of this intervention as a weight management strategy.