Dataset Information

Step detection and activity recognition accuracy of seven physical activity monitors.

ABSTRACT: The aim of this study was to compare the seven following commercially available activity monitors in terms of step count detection accuracy: Movemonitor (Mc Roberts), Up (Jawbone), One (Fitbit), ActivPAL (PAL Technologies Ltd.), Nike+ Fuelband (Nike Inc.), Tractivity (Kineteks Corp.) and Sensewear Armband Mini (Bodymedia). Sixteen healthy adults consented to take part in the study. The experimental protocol included walking along an indoor straight walkway, descending and ascending 24 steps, free outdoor walking and free indoor walking. These tasks were repeated at three self-selected walking speeds. Angular velocity signals collected at both shanks using two wireless inertial measurement units (OPAL, ADPM Inc) were used as a reference for the step count, computed using previously validated algorithms. Step detection accuracy was assessed using the mean absolute percentage error computed for each sensor. The Movemonitor and the ActivPAL were also tested within a nine-minute activity recognition protocol, during which the participants performed a set of complex tasks. Posture classifications were obtained from the two monitors and expressed as a percentage of the total task duration. The Movemonitor, One, ActivPAL, Nike+ Fuelband and Sensewear Armband Mini underestimated the number of steps in all the observed walking speeds, whereas the Tractivity significantly overestimated step count. The Movemonitor was the best performing sensor, with an error lower than 2% at all speeds and the smallest error obtained in the outdoor walking. The activity recognition protocol showed that the Movemonitor performed best in the walking recognition, but had difficulty in discriminating between standing and sitting. Results of this study can be used to inform choice of a monitor for specific applications.

SUBMITTER: Storm FA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4366111 | biostudies-literature | 2015

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Step detection and activity recognition accuracy of seven physical activity monitors.

Storm Fabio A FA Heller Ben W BW Mazzà Claudia C

PloS one 20150319 3

The aim of this study was to compare the seven following commercially available activity monitors in terms of step count detection accuracy: Movemonitor (Mc Roberts), Up (Jawbone), One (Fitbit), ActivPAL (PAL Technologies Ltd.), Nike+ Fuelband (Nike Inc.), Tractivity (Kineteks Corp.) and Sensewear Armband Mini (Bodymedia). Sixteen healthy adults consented to take part in the study. The experimental protocol included walking along an indoor straight walkway, descending and ascending 24 steps, fre ...[more]

PMID: 25789630

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background:The body of evidence related to the effect of physical activity monitor-based interventions has grown over the recent years. However, the effect of physical activity monitor-based interventions in older adults remains unclear and should be systematically reviewed. Objective:The objective of this systematic review was to estimate the effect of physical activity monitor-based interventions on physical activity behavior in participants aged 65 and above. Subsequently we explored the effect on body mass index, physical capacity, and health-related quality of life and finally the impact of patient- and intervention characteristics. Methods:Searches in MEDLINE, EMBASE, SPORTDiscus, CINAHL, and CENTRAL were performed on April 26, 2018. No publication date filters were applied. References of eligible studies were scrutinized and relevant journals were hand-searched. Randomized controlled trials and randomized cross-over trials investigating the effect of a physical activity monitor-based intervention on physical activity were included. Studies were included if the mean age of the participants was above 65?years, and participants could walk independently with or without walking aids. The Cochrane handbook was used as a template for extracting data and the RoB 2.0 tool was used to assess risk of bias. Random-effects meta-analysis using Hedges g, were used to pool the study results. The main outcome of this study was physical activity. Results:Twenty-one studies with 2783 participants were included. The median participant age in the studies was 70.5?years, the median percentage of male participants was 42%, and the median baseline daily step count was 5268. Physical activity monitor-based interventions had a moderate effect (SMD?=?0.54, 95% CI: 0.34 to 0.73) compared to control interventions, corresponding to an average increase of 1297 steps per day in the intervention groups. No impact of patient and intervention characteristics on the effect estimates were found. Short conclusion:Low quality of evidence was found for a moderate effect of physical activity monitor-based interventions on physical activity compared with control interventions. More studies with higher research methodology standards are required. PROSPERO registration:CRD42018083648.

Project description:ObjectiveTo estimate the effectiveness of physical activity monitor (PAM) based interventions among adults and explore reasons for the heterogeneity.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Study selectionThe electronic databases MEDLINE, Embase, SPORTDiscus, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched on 4 June 2021. Eligible randomised controlled trials compared interventions in which adults received feedback from PAMs with control interventions in which no feedback was provided. No restrictions on type of outcome measurement, publication date, or language were applied.Data extraction and synthesisTwo reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Random effects meta-analyses were used to synthesise the results. The certainty of evidence was rated by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.Main outcome measuresThe three primary outcomes of interest were physical activity, moderate to vigorous physical activity, and sedentary time.Results121 randomised controlled trials with 141 study comparisons, including 16 743 participants, were included. The PAM based interventions showed a moderate effect (standardised mean difference 0.42, 95% confidence interval 0.28 to 0.55) on physical activity, equivalent to 1235 daily steps; a small effect (0.23, 0.16 to 0.30) on moderate to vigorous physical activity, equivalent to 48.5 weekly minutes; and a small insignificant effect (-0.12, -0.25 to 0.01) on sedentary time, equal to 9.9 daily minutes. All outcomes favoured the PAM interventions.ConclusionsThe certainty of evidence was low for the effect of PAM based interventions on physical activity and moderate for moderate to vigorous physical activity and sedentary time. PAM based interventions are safe and effectively increase physical activity and moderate to vigorous physical activity. The effect on physical activity and moderate to vigorous physical activity is well established but might be overestimated owing to publication bias.Study registrationPROSPERO CRD42018102719.

Dataset Information

Step detection and activity recognition accuracy of seven physical activity monitors.

Publications

Step detection and activity recognition accuracy of seven physical activity monitors.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets