Validity of a Global Positioning System-Based Algorithm and Consumer Wearables for Classifying Active Trips in Children and Adults.

Chelsea Steel, Katie Crist, Amanda Grimes, Carolina Bejarano, Adrian Ortega, Paul R Hibbing, Jasper Schipperijn, Jordan A Carlson
{"title":"Validity of a Global Positioning System-Based Algorithm and Consumer Wearables for Classifying Active Trips in Children and Adults.","authors":"Chelsea Steel, Katie Crist, Amanda Grimes, Carolina Bejarano, Adrian Ortega, Paul R Hibbing, Jasper Schipperijn, Jordan A Carlson","doi":"10.1123/jmpb.2021-0019","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To investigate the convergent validity of a global positioning system (GPS)-based and two consumer-based measures with trip logs for classifying pedestrian, cycling, and vehicle trips in children and adults.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Participants (<i>N</i> = 34) wore a Qstarz GPS tracker, Fitbit Alta, and Garmin vivosmart 3 on multiple days and logged their outdoor pedestrian, cycling, and vehicle trips. Logged trips were compared with device-measured trips using the Personal Activity Location Measurement System (PALMS) GPS-based algorithms, Fitbit's SmartTrack, and Garmin's Move IQ. Trip- and day-level agreement were tested.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The PALMS identified and correctly classified the mode of 75.6%, 94.5%, and 96.9% of pedestrian, cycling, and vehicle trips (84.5% of active trips, F1 = 0.84 and 0.87) as compared with the log. Fitbit and Garmin identified and correctly classified the mode of 26.8% and 17.8% (22.6% of active trips, F1 = 0.40 and 0.30) and 46.3% and 43.8% (45.2% of active trips, F1 = 0.58 and 0.59) of pedestrian and cycling trips. Garmin was more prone to false positives (false trips not logged). Day-level agreement for PALMS and Garmin versus logs was favorable across trip modes, though PALMS performed best. Fitbit significantly underestimated daily cycling. Results were similar but slightly less favorable for children than adults.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The PALMS showed good convergent validity in children and adults and were about 50% and 27% more accurate than Fitbit and Garmin (based on F1). Empirically-based recommendations for improving PALMS' pedestrian classification are provided. Since the consumer devices capture both indoor and outdoor walking/running and cycling, they are less appropriate for trip-based research.</p>","PeriodicalId":73572,"journal":{"name":"Journal for the measurement of physical behaviour","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9555805/pdf/nihms-1805244.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal for the measurement of physical behaviour","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1123/jmpb.2021-0019","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/10/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To investigate the convergent validity of a global positioning system (GPS)-based and two consumer-based measures with trip logs for classifying pedestrian, cycling, and vehicle trips in children and adults.

Methods: Participants (N = 34) wore a Qstarz GPS tracker, Fitbit Alta, and Garmin vivosmart 3 on multiple days and logged their outdoor pedestrian, cycling, and vehicle trips. Logged trips were compared with device-measured trips using the Personal Activity Location Measurement System (PALMS) GPS-based algorithms, Fitbit's SmartTrack, and Garmin's Move IQ. Trip- and day-level agreement were tested.

Results: The PALMS identified and correctly classified the mode of 75.6%, 94.5%, and 96.9% of pedestrian, cycling, and vehicle trips (84.5% of active trips, F1 = 0.84 and 0.87) as compared with the log. Fitbit and Garmin identified and correctly classified the mode of 26.8% and 17.8% (22.6% of active trips, F1 = 0.40 and 0.30) and 46.3% and 43.8% (45.2% of active trips, F1 = 0.58 and 0.59) of pedestrian and cycling trips. Garmin was more prone to false positives (false trips not logged). Day-level agreement for PALMS and Garmin versus logs was favorable across trip modes, though PALMS performed best. Fitbit significantly underestimated daily cycling. Results were similar but slightly less favorable for children than adults.

Conclusions: The PALMS showed good convergent validity in children and adults and were about 50% and 27% more accurate than Fitbit and Garmin (based on F1). Empirically-based recommendations for improving PALMS' pedestrian classification are provided. Since the consumer devices capture both indoor and outdoor walking/running and cycling, they are less appropriate for trip-based research.

Abstract Image

基于全球定位系统的算法和消费类可穿戴设备对儿童和成人主动出行进行分类的有效性。
目的研究基于全球定位系统(GPS)的测量方法和两种基于消费者的测量方法与出行记录的融合有效性,以对儿童和成人的行人、骑自行车和乘车出行进行分类:参与者(34 人)多日佩戴 Qstarz GPS 追踪器、Fitbit Alta 和 Garmin vivosmart 3,并记录他们的户外步行、骑行和乘车行程。使用基于个人活动定位测量系统(PALMS)的 GPS 算法、Fitbit 的 SmartTrack 和 Garmin 的 Move IQ,将记录的行程与设备测量的行程进行比较。测试了行程和日级别的一致性:与日志相比,PALMS 分别识别并正确分类了 75.6%、94.5% 和 96.9% 的行人、自行车和汽车出行(84.5% 的主动出行,F1 = 0.84 和 0.87)。Fitbit和Garmin分别识别并正确分类了26.8%和17.8%(22.6%的主动出行,F1=0.40和0.30)以及46.3%和43.8%(45.2%的主动出行,F1=0.58和0.59)的行人和骑车出行模式。Garmin 更容易出现误报(未记录的错误行程)。在各种出行方式中,PALMS 和 Garmin 与日志的日级别一致性都很好,但 PALMS 的表现最好。Fitbit 明显低估了每日骑行量。儿童的结果与成人相似,但略低于成人:PALMS在儿童和成人中表现出良好的收敛有效性,其准确性分别比Fitbit和Garmin高出约50%和27%(基于F1)。我们还提供了基于经验的建议,以改进 PALMS 的行人分类。由于消费类设备可捕捉室内和室外步行/跑步和骑自行车的情况,因此不太适合基于行程的研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信