Comparability of measured acceleration from accelerometry-based activity monitors.

BACKGROUND Accelerometers that provide triaxial measured acceleration data are now available. However, equivalence of output between brands cannot be assumed and testing is necessary to determine whether features of the acceleration signal are interchangeable. PURPOSE This study aimed to establish the equivalence of output between two brands of monitor in a laboratory and in a free-living environment. METHODS For part 1, 38 adults performed nine laboratory-based activities while wearing an ActiGraph GT3X+ and GENEActiv (Gravity Estimator of Normal Everyday Activity) at the hip. For part 2, 58 children age 10-12 yr wore a GT3X+ and GENEActiv at the hip for 7 d in a free-living setting. RESULTS For part 1, the magnitude of time domain features from the GENEActiv was greater than that from the GT3X+. However, frequency domain features compared well, with perfect agreement of the dominant frequency for 97%-100% of participants for most activities. For part 2, mean daily acceleration measured by the two brands was correlated (r = 0.93, P < 0.001, respectively) but the magnitude was approximately 15% lower for the GT3X+ than that for the GENEActiv at the hip. CONCLUSIONS Frequency domain-based classification algorithms should be transferable between monitors, and it should be possible to apply time domain-based classification algorithms developed for one device to the other by applying an affine conversion on the measured acceleration values. The strong relation between accelerations measured by the two brands suggests that habitual activity level and activity patterns assessed by the GENE and GT3X+ may compare well if analyzed appropriately.

[1]  Whitney Allegra Welch,et al.  Classification Accuracy of the Wrist-Worn GENEA Accelerometer During Structured Activity Bouts: A Cross-Validation Study , 2012 .

[2]  Gregory J Welk,et al.  Protocols for evaluating equivalency of accelerometry-based activity monitors. , 2012, Medicine and science in sports and exercise.

[3]  J. Staudenmayer,et al.  Development of novel techniques to classify physical activity mode using accelerometers. , 2006, Medicine and science in sports and exercise.

[4]  Y. Oshima,et al.  Classifying household and locomotive activities using a triaxial accelerometer. , 2010, Gait & posture.

[5]  Patty S. Freedson,et al.  Comparison of Raw Acceleration from the GENEA and ActiGraph™ GT3X+ Activity Monitors , 2013, Sensors.

[6]  Tina L Hurst,et al.  Physical activity classification using the GENEA wrist-worn accelerometer. , 2012, Medicine and science in sports and exercise.

[7]  J. Staudenmayer,et al.  Classification accuracy of the wrist-worn gravity estimator of normal everyday activity accelerometer. , 2013, Medicine and science in sports and exercise.

[8]  Alexander Horsch,et al.  Separating Movement and Gravity Components in an Acceleration Signal and Implications for the Assessment of Human Daily Physical Activity , 2013, PloS one.

[9]  A. Goris,et al.  Detection of type, duration, and intensity of physical activity using an accelerometer. , 2009, Medicine and science in sports and exercise.

[10]  Hylton B Menz,et al.  Accelerometry: a technique for quantifying movement patterns during walking. , 2008, Gait & posture.

[11]  V. Stiles,et al.  Accelerometer counts and raw acceleration output in relation to mechanical loading. , 2012, Journal of biomechanics.

[12]  S. Berthoin,et al.  Improving physical activity assessment in prepubertal children with high-frequency accelerometry monitoring: a methodological issue. , 2007, Preventive medicine.

[13]  John Staudenmayer,et al.  An artificial neural network to estimate physical activity energy expenditure and identify physical activity type from an accelerometer. , 2009, Journal of applied physiology.

[14]  U. Ekelund,et al.  Assessing physical activity using wearable monitors: measures of physical activity. , 2012, Medicine and science in sports and exercise.

[15]  D. Bassett,et al.  Calibration and validation of wearable monitors. , 2012, Medicine and science in sports and exercise.

[16]  V. Stiles,et al.  Use of accelerometry to classify activity beneficial to bone in premenopausal women. , 2013, Medicine and science in sports and exercise.

[17]  R. Eston,et al.  Activity classification using the GENEA: optimum sampling frequency and number of axes. , 2012, Medicine and science in sports and exercise.

[18]  Kong Y Chen,et al.  Redefining the roles of sensors in objective physical activity monitoring. , 2012, Medicine and science in sports and exercise.