Dataset Information

"What Is a Step?" Differences in How a Step Is Detected among Three Popular Activity Monitors That Have Impacted Physical Activity Research.

ABSTRACT: (1) Background: This study compared manually-counted treadmill walking steps from the hip-worn DigiwalkerSW200 and OmronHJ720ITC, and hip and wrist-worn ActiGraph GT3X+ and GT9X; determined brand-specific acceleration amplitude (g) and/or frequency (Hz) step-detection thresholds; and quantified key features of the acceleration signal during walking. (2) Methods: Twenty participants (Age: 26.7 ± 4.9 years) performed treadmill walking between 0.89-to-1.79 m/s (2-4 mph) while wearing a hip-worn DigiwalkerSW200, OmronHJ720ITC, GT3X+ and GT9X, and a wrist-worn GT3X+ and GT9X. A DigiwalkerSW200 and OmronHJ720ITC underwent shaker testing to determine device-specific frequency and amplitude step-detection thresholds. Simulated signal testing was used to determine thresholds for the ActiGraph step algorithm. Steps during human testing were compared using bias and confidence intervals. (3) Results: The OmronHJ720ITC was most accurate during treadmill walking. Hip and wrist-worn ActiGraph outputs were significantly different from the criterion. The DigiwalkerSW200 records steps for movements with a total acceleration of ?1.21 g. The OmronHJ720ITC detects a step when movement has an acceleration ?0.10 g with a dominant frequency of ?1 Hz. The step-threshold for the ActiLife algorithm is variable based on signal frequency. Acceleration signals at the hip and wrist have distinctive patterns during treadmill walking. (4) Conclusions: Three common research-grade physical activity monitors employ different step-detection strategies, which causes variability in step output.

SUBMITTER: John D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5948774 | biostudies-other | 2018 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

"What Is a Step?" Differences in How a Step Is Detected among Three Popular Activity Monitors That Have Impacted Physical Activity Research.

John Dinesh D Morton Alvin A Arguello Diego D Lyden Kate K Bassett David D

Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) 20180415 4

(1) Background: This study compared manually-counted treadmill walking steps from the hip-worn DigiwalkerSW200 and OmronHJ720ITC, and hip and wrist-worn ActiGraph GT3X+ and GT9X; determined brand-specific acceleration amplitude (g) and/or frequency (Hz) step-detection thresholds; and quantified key features of the acceleration signal during walking. (2) Methods: Twenty participants (Age: 26.7 ± 4.9 years) performed treadmill walking between 0.89-to-1.79 m/s (2-4 mph) while wearing a hip-worn Dig ...[more]

PMID: 29662048

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

"What Is a Step?" Differences in How a Step Is Detected among Three Popular Activity Monitors That Have Impacted Physical Activity Research.

Publications

"What Is a Step?" Differences in How a Step Is Detected among Three Popular Activity Monitors That Have Impacted Physical Activity Research.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets