Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 1,453 items for :

  • "accelerometers" x
Clear All
Restricted access

Luke J. Boyd, Kevin Ball and Robert J. Aughey


To assess the reliability of triaxial accelerometers as a measure of physical activity in team sports.


Eight accelerometers (MinimaxX 2.0, Catapult, Australia) were attached to a hydraulic universal testing machine (Instron 8501) and oscillated over two protocols (0.5 g and 3.0 g) to assess within- and between-device reliability. A static assessment was also conducted. Secondly, 10 players were instrumented with two accelerometers during Australian football matches. The vector magnitude was calculated, expressed as Player load and assessed for reliability using typical error (TE) ± 90% confidence intervals (CI), and expressed as a coefficient of variation (CV%). The smallest worthwhile difference (SWD) in Player load was calculated to determine if the device was capable of detecting differences in physical activity.


Laboratory: Within- (Dynamic: CV 0.91 to 1.05%; Static: CV 1.01%) and between-device (Dynamic: CV 1.02 to 1.04%; Static: CV 1.10%) reliability was acceptable across each test. Field: The between-device reliability of accelerometers during Australian football matches was also acceptable (CV 1.9%). The SWD was 5.88%.


The reliability of the MinimaxX accelerometer is acceptable both within and between devices under controlled laboratory conditions, and between devices during field testing. MinimaxX accelerometers can be confidently utilized as a reliable tool to measure physical activity in team sports across multiple players and repeated bouts of activity. The noise (CV%) of Player load was lower than the signal (SWD), suggesting that accelerometers can detect changes or differences in physical activity during Australian football.

Restricted access

Jonghoon Park, Kazuko Ishikawa-Takata, Sachiko Tanaka, Kyoko Bessyo, Shigeho Tanaka and Toshihide Kimura

The purpose of this study was to examine the accuracy of uni- and triaxial accelerometers in monitoring step counts and gait intensity in older people who did or did not use an assistive device. Forty-nine healthy and frail older adults wore uniaxial (Lifecorder, Suzuken Co. Ltd.) and triaxial accelerometers (Activity Monitor, Matsushita Electronic Works, Ltd., and Active Style Pro, Omron Healthcare Co., Ltd.) during three trials at different gait speeds. All accelerometers gave relatively accurate step counts for healthy older participants compared with direct observation; however, the error was greater for frail older people with assistive devices. Gait intensity detection error was unaffected by gait speed. Among frail older people with assistive devices, the gait intensity error was smaller than for step count error. To accurately assess the steps walked or the gait intensity among frail older people using assistive devices, more study is needed on these groups of participants.

Restricted access

Liezel Hurter, Anna M. Cooper-Ryan, Zoe R. Knowles, Lorna A. Porcellato, Stuart J. Fairclough and Lynne M. Boddy

school prior to the start of data collection, which was used for anthropometric measurements, explanation, and fitting of accelerometers and familiarization with the DCDC application on the tablet. Anthropometrics Body mass was measured in light clothing without shoes, to the nearest 0.1 kg using an

Restricted access

Rajni Rai, Michelle I. Jongenelis, Ben Jackson, Robert U. Newton and Simone Pettigrew

preferences of the participants. Participants who completed the questionnaire were invited to attend an on-campus appointment, during which their height, weight, and waist girth were measured and accelerometers were distributed. Participants were instructed on how to use the accelerometers; this included

Open access

Melanna F. Cox, Greg J. Petrucci Jr., Robert T. Marcotte, Brittany R. Masteller, John Staudenmayer, Patty S. Freedson and John R. Sirard

A widely used tool to assess physical activity (PA) and sedentary behavior (SB) is the wearable accelerometer. Accelerometers are often used in free-living settings for surveillance and intervention studies. To quantify the amount and intensity of body movement, prediction models are applied to

Restricted access

Kavita A. Gavand, Kelli L. Cain, Terry L. Conway, Brian E. Saelens, Lawrence D. Frank, Jacqueline Kerr, Karen Glanz and James F. Sallis

from 2 metropolitan areas in the United States. The present study fills gaps in understanding by including both reported and objective measures of PA, and measures of use of various recreation facilities. Objective accelerometer measures provided more precise estimates of total PA, and self

Full access

Kelsie M. Full, Eileen Johnson, Michelle Takemoto, Sheri J. Hartman, Jacqueline Kerr, Loki Natarajan, Ruth E. Patterson and Dorothy D. Sears

activity behavior substitution. LIPA indicates light-intensity physical activity; MVPA, moderate to vigorous physical activity; SB, sedentary behavior. The primary aim of this study is to use accelerometer data to construct isotemporal substitution models to assess the associations to cancer recurrence

Restricted access

Alexander H.K. Montoye, John Vusich, John Mitrzyk and Matt Wiersma

the CPAM industry ( Lamkin, 2016 ), it is vital to understand how, and how well, CPAMs measure PA variables. Early CPAM models functioned similar to pedometers, counting steps through an accelerometer and incorporating user-entered data (e.g., height, weight, age) and steps accumulated to predict

Restricted access

Kathryn J. DeShaw, Laura Ellingson, Yang Bai, Jeni Lansing, Maria Perez and Greg Welk

non-dominant wrist for the assessment phase while also concurrently wearing the ActiGraph and activPal two accelerometers to evaluate PA outcomes from the intervention. While the focus of the main study was on behavior change, the use of multiple monitors in this final week provides an ideal setting

Restricted access

I-Min Lee, Eric J. Shiroma, Kelly R. Evenson, Masamitsu Kamada, Andrea Z. LaCroix and Julie E. Buring

available, rather than because the available evidence indicates no benefit of LPA on clinical outcomes. Since the 2008 guidelines, developments in technology have made it feasible to assess physical activity more precisely using accelerometers in large numbers of individuals, at reasonable cost ( Lee