Using Bluetooth proximity sensing to determine where office workers spend time at work

Background Most wearable devices that measure movement in workplaces cannot determine the context in which people spend time. This study examined the accuracy of Bluetooth sensing (10-second intervals) via the ActiGraph GT9X Link monitor to determine location in an office setting, using two simple, bespoke algorithms. Methods For one work day (mean±SD 6.2±1.1 hours), 30 office workers (30% men, aged 38±11 years) simultaneously wore chest-mounted cameras (video recording) and Bluetooth-enabled monitors (initialised as receivers) on the wrist and thigh. Additional monitors (initialised as beacons) were placed in the entry, kitchen, photocopy room, corridors, and the wearer’s office. Firstly, participant presence/absence at each location was predicted from the presence/absence of signals at that location (ignoring all other signals). Secondly, using the information gathered at multiple locations simultaneously, a simple heuristic model was used to predict at which location the participant was present. The Bluetooth-determined location for each algorithm was tested against the camera in terms of F-scores. Results When considering locations individually, the accuracy obtained was excellent in the office (F-score = 0.98 and 0.97 for thigh and wrist positions) but poor in other locations (F-score = 0.04 to 0.36), stemming primarily from a high false positive rate. The multi-location algorithm exhibited high accuracy for the office location (F-score = 0.97 for both wear positions). It also improved the F-scores obtained in the remaining locations, but not always to levels indicating good accuracy (e.g., F-score for photocopy room ≈0.1 in both wear positions). Conclusions The Bluetooth signalling function shows promise for determining where workers spend most of their time (i.e., their office). Placing beacons in multiple locations and using a rule-based decision model improved classification accuracy; however, for workplace locations visited infrequently or with considerable movement, accuracy was below desirable levels. Further development of algorithms is warranted.

[1]  Ben Stansfield,et al.  Quantifying the cadence of free-living walking using event-based analysis. , 2015, Gait & posture.

[2]  Richard P Troiano,et al.  Evolution of accelerometer methods for physical activity research , 2014, British Journal of Sports Medicine.

[3]  Willem van Mechelen,et al.  Sedentary behaviors and health outcomes among adults: a systematic review of prospective studies. , 2011, American journal of preventive medicine.

[4]  John J. McNeil,et al.  Obesity and Trends in Life Expectancy , 2012, Journal of obesity.

[5]  PATTY S. FREEDSON,et al.  Utilization and Harmonization of Adult Accelerometry Data: Review and Expert Consensus , 2015, Medicine and science in sports and exercise.

[6]  Jane Wardle,et al.  Indoor Tracking to Understand Physical Activity and Sedentary Behaviour: Exploratory Study in UK Office Buildings , 2015, PloS one.

[7]  Satyamurthy Anuradha,et al.  Replacing sitting time with standing or stepping: associations with cardio-metabolic risk biomarkers. , 2015, European heart journal.

[8]  Naomi S. Altman,et al.  Points of Significance: Model selection and overfitting , 2016, Nature Methods.

[9]  John Staudenmayer,et al.  The Feasibility of Reducing and Measuring Sedentary Time among Overweight, Non-Exercising Office Workers , 2011, Journal of obesity.

[10]  Steve Hodges,et al.  Can we use digital life-log images to investigate active and sedentary travel behaviour? Results from a pilot study , 2011, The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity.

[11]  Anil Madhavapeddy,et al.  A Study of Bluetooth Propagation Using Accurate Indoor Location Mapping , 2005, UbiComp.

[12]  Stephen J. Sharp,et al.  Increasing objectively measured sedentary time increases clustered cardiometabolic risk: a 6 year analysis of the ProActive study , 2013, Diabetologia.

[13]  Lauren B Sherar,et al.  Technologies That Assess the Location of Physical Activity and Sedentary Behavior: A Systematic Review , 2015, Journal of medical Internet research.

[14]  Matthew P Buman,et al.  Reallocating time to sleep, sedentary behaviors, or active behaviors: associations with cardiovascular disease risk biomarkers, NHANES 2005-2006. , 2014, American journal of epidemiology.

[15]  J. Rey-Lopez,et al.  Sedentary Behavior and Health Outcomes: An Overview of Systematic Reviews , 2014, PloS one.

[16]  Steve E Hodges,et al.  Wearable cameras in health: the state of the art and future possibilities. , 2013, American journal of preventive medicine.

[17]  Leon Straker,et al.  Sedentary work. Evidence on an emergent work health and safety issue , 2016 .

[18]  Mustafa Y. Sir,et al.  Intelligent Emergency Department: Validation of Sociometers to Study Workload , 2016, Journal of Medical Systems.

[19]  Ingrid Moerman,et al.  Performance analysis of multiple Indoor Positioning Systems in a healthcare environment , 2016, International Journal of Health Geographics.

[20]  Catriona Dolan,et al.  Novel technology to help understand the context of physical activity and sedentary behaviour , 2016 .

[21]  Stewart G Trost,et al.  Intervening to reduce workplace sitting time: how and when do changes to sitting time occur? , 2014, British Journal of Sports Medicine.

[22]  Joon-young Jung,et al.  Near field distance awareness algorithm using bluetooth for device sociality service , 2016, 2016 18th International Conference on Advanced Communication Technology (ICACT).

[23]  Kevin W Dodd,et al.  Ability of thigh-worn ActiGraph and activPAL monitors to classify posture and motion. , 2015, Medicine and science in sports and exercise.

[24]  Dritan Kaleshi,et al.  Classification and suitability of sensing technologies for activity recognition , 2016, Comput. Commun..