A method to compare new and traditional accelerometry data in physical activity monitoring

The accelerometer devices as traditionally used in the epidemiological field for physical activity monitoring (e.g. Actigraph, Actical, and RT3) provide manufacturer-dependent output values called counts that are computed by obscure and proprietary signal processing techniques. This lack of transparency poses a challenge for comparison of historical accelerometer data in counts with data collected using raw accelerometry in S.I. units — m/s2. The purpose of this study was to develop a method that facilitates the compatibility between both methods through conversion of raw accelerometer output data collected with inertial acceleration sensors into Actigraph counts — the most widely used (de facto standard) device brand in epidemiological studies. The basics of the conversion algorithm were captured from the technical specifications of the Actigraph GT1M. Fine-tuning of the algorithm was achieved empirically under controlled conditions using a mechanical shaker device. A pilot evaluation was carried out through physical activity monitoring in free-living scenarios of 19 adult participants (age: 47 ± 11 yrs, BMI: 25.2 ± 4.1 kg-m−2) wearing both devices. The results show that Actigraph counts estimated by the proposed method explain 94.2% of the variation in Actigraph counts (p < 0.001). The concordance correlation coefficient was 0.93 (p < 0.05). The sensitivity for classifying intensity ranged from 93.4% for light physical activity to 70.7% for moderate physical activity.

[1]  Mark S Tremblay,et al.  Technical reliability assessment of three accelerometer models in a mechanical setup. , 2006, Medicine and science in sports and exercise.

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

[3]  KR Westerterp,et al.  Physical activity assessment with accelerometers , 1999, International Journal of Obesity.

[4]  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.

[5]  L. Lin,et al.  A concordance correlation coefficient to evaluate reproducibility. , 1989, Biometrics.

[6]  Kenneth Meijer,et al.  Activity identification using body-mounted sensors—a review of classification techniques , 2009, Physiological measurement.

[7]  Søren Brage,et al.  Accelerometers and pedometers: methodology and clinical application , 2007, Current opinion in clinical nutrition and metabolic care.

[8]  Jessie Venegas The Finnish Diabetes Prevention Study , 2008 .

[9]  P S Freedson,et al.  Field trial of a three-dimensional activity monitor: comparison with self report. , 1995, Medicine and science in sports and exercise.

[10]  Ulf Ekelund,et al.  Assessment of physical activity in youth. , 2008, Journal of applied physiology.

[11]  Mark S Tremblay,et al.  Physical activity and inactivity profiling: the next generation. , 2007, Canadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publique.

[12]  Mike Y. Chen,et al.  Tracking Free-Weight Exercises , 2007, UbiComp.

[13]  Publications Tackling Obesities: Future Choices , 2007 .

[14]  W. van Mechelen,et al.  Validity and reproducibility of motion sensors in youth: a systematic update. , 2009, Medicine and science in sports and exercise.

[15]  T. Valle,et al.  The Finnish Diabetes Prevention Study , 2000, British Journal of Nutrition.

[16]  R. Klesges,et al.  A validation of two motion sensors in the prediction of child and adult physical activity levels. , 1985, American journal of epidemiology.

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

[18]  Willem Van Mechelen,et al.  Reproducibility of a triaxial seismic accelerometer (DynaPort). , 2009, Medicine and science in sports and exercise.

[19]  K. Westerterp,et al.  Physical Activity Assessment With Accelerometers: An Evaluation Against Doubly Labeled Water , 2007, Obesity.

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

[21]  R. C. Lummel,et al.  Estimating Activity‐related Energy Expenditure Under Sedentary Conditions Using a Tri‐axial Seismic Accelerometer , 2009, Obesity.

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

[23]  Ian Roberts,et al.  Population adiposity and climate change. , 2009, International journal of epidemiology.

[24]  S. Brage,et al.  Reliability and Validity of the Computer Science and Applications Accelerometer in a Mechanical Setting , 2003 .

[25]  P H Veltink,et al.  Detection of static and dynamic activities using uniaxial accelerometers. , 1996, IEEE transactions on rehabilitation engineering : a publication of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society.

[26]  G Plasqui,et al.  Improving assessment of daily energy expenditure by identifying types of physical activity with a single accelerometer. , 2009, Journal of applied physiology.