Comparison of four ActiGraph accelerometers during walking and running.

UNLABELLED Currently, researchers can use the ActiGraph 7164 or one of three different versions of the ActiGraph GT1M to objectively measure physical activity. PURPOSE To determine whether differences exist between activity counts from the ActiGraph 7164 and the three versions of the GT1M at given walking and running speeds. METHODS Ten male participants (23.6 +/- 2.7 yr) completed treadmill walking and running at 10 different speeds (3-min stages) while wearing the ActiGraph 7164 and the latest GT1M (GT1M-V3) or the GT1M version one (GT1M-V1) and the GT1M version two (GT1M-V2). Participants walked at 3, 5, and 7 km x h(-1) followed by running at 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, and 20 km x h(-1). The accelerometers were worn on an elastic belt around the waist over the left and right sides of the hip. Testing was performed on different days using a counterbalanced within-subjects design to account for potential differences attributable to accelerometer placement. At each speed, a one-way repeated-measures ANOVA was used to examine differences between activity counts in counts per minute (cpm). Post hoc pairwise comparisons with Bonferroni adjustments were used where appropriate. RESULTS There were no significant differences between activity counts at any given walking or running speed (P < 0.05). At all running speeds, activity counts from the ActiGraph 7164 and GT1M-V2 displayed the lowest and highest values, respectively. Output from all accelerometers peaked at 14 km x h(-1) (mean range = 8974 +/- 677 to 9412 +/- 982 cpm) and then gradually declined at higher speeds. The mean difference score at peak output between the ActiGraph 7164 and GT1M-V2 was 439 +/- 565 cpm. CONCLUSIONS There were no statistically significant differences between outputs from all the accelerometers, indicating that researchers can select any of the four ActiGraph accelerometers in doing research.

[1]  Kong Y Chen,et al.  Comparing the performance of three generations of ActiGraph accelerometers. , 2008, Journal of applied physiology.

[2]  Karsten Froberg,et al.  Unit-specific calibration of Actigraph accelerometers in a mechanical setup – Is it worth the effort? The effect on random output variation caused by technical inter-instrument variability in the laboratory and in the field , 2008, BMC medical research methodology.

[3]  L. Mâsse,et al.  Physical activity in the United States measured by accelerometer. , 2008, Medicine and science in sports and exercise.

[4]  U. Ekelund,et al.  Comparison of two Actigraph models for assessing free-living physical activity in Indian adolescents , 2007, Journal of sports sciences.

[5]  R. Eston,et al.  Influence of speed and step frequency during walking and running on motion sensor output. , 2007, Medicine and science in sports and exercise.

[6]  Barry W. Fudge,et al.  Estimation of oxygen uptake during fast running using accelerometry and heart rate. , 2007, Medicine and science in sports and exercise.

[7]  Scott E Crouter,et al.  A novel method for using accelerometer data to predict energy expenditure. , 2006, Journal of applied physiology.

[8]  D. Bassett,et al.  The technology of accelerometry-based activity monitors: current and future. , 2005, Medicine and science in sports and exercise.

[9]  M. Orendurff,et al.  The effect of walking speed on center of mass displacement. , 2004, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[10]  Karsten Froberg,et al.  Reexamination of validity and reliability of the CSA monitor in walking and running. , 2003, Medicine and science in sports and exercise.

[11]  Ulf Ekelund,et al.  Effect of monitor placement and of activity setting on the MTI accelerometer output. , 2003, Medicine and science in sports and exercise.

[12]  N. Leenders,et al.  Ability of Different Physical Activity Monitors to Detect Movement During Treadmill Walking , 2003, International journal of sports medicine.

[13]  P. Komi,et al.  Biomechanical factors affecting running economy. , 2001, Medicine and science in sports and exercise.

[14]  Jyh-Cheng Yu,et al.  System modeling of microaccelerometer using piezoelectric thin films , 2001 .

[15]  P. Freedson,et al.  Validity of accelerometry for the assessment of moderate intensity physical activity in the field. , 2000, Medicine and science in sports and exercise.

[16]  B. Ainsworth,et al.  Estimation of energy expenditure using CSA accelerometers at hip and wrist sites. , 2000, Medicine and science in sports and exercise.

[17]  J F Nichols,et al.  Assessment of Physical Activity with the Computer Science and Applications, Inc., Accelerometer: Laboratory versus Field Validation , 2000, Research quarterly for exercise and sport.

[18]  J. Donelan,et al.  Force treadmill for measuring vertical and horizontal ground reaction forces. , 1998, Journal of applied physiology.

[19]  Jack Daniels,et al.  Daniels’ Running Formula , 1998 .

[20]  P S Freedson,et al.  Calibration of the Computer Science and Applications, Inc. accelerometer. , 1998, Medicine and science in sports and exercise.

[21]  J. D. Janssen,et al.  A triaxial accelerometer and portable data processing unit for the assessment of daily physical activity , 1997, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[22]  Robert Williams,et al.  Fully proportional actigraphy: A new instrument , 1996 .

[23]  John G. Webster,et al.  Portable Accelerometer Device for Measuring Human Energy Expenditure , 1981, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[24]  E. P. Mccutcheon,et al.  Body acceleration distribution and O2 uptake in humans during running and jumping. , 1980, Journal of applied physiology: respiratory, environmental and exercise physiology.

[25]  R MARGARIA,et al.  A three-directional accelerometer for analyzing body movements. , 1961, Journal of applied physiology.