Validation of Wearable Camera Still Images to Assess Posture in Free-Living Conditions.

Julian Martinez, Autumn Decker, Chi C Cho, Aiden Doherty, Ann M Swartz, John W Staudenmayer, Scott J Strath
{"title":"Validation of Wearable Camera Still Images to Assess Posture in Free-Living Conditions.","authors":"Julian Martinez,&nbsp;Autumn Decker,&nbsp;Chi C Cho,&nbsp;Aiden Doherty,&nbsp;Ann M Swartz,&nbsp;John W Staudenmayer,&nbsp;Scott J Strath","doi":"10.1123/jmpb.2020-0038","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To assess the convergent validity of body worn wearable camera (WC) still-images (IMGs) for determining posture compared with activPAL (AP) classifications.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Participants (n=16, mean age 46.7±23.8yrs, 9F) wore an Autographer WC above the xyphoid process and an AP during three, 2hr free-living visits. IMGs were captured on average 8.47 seconds apart and were annotated with output consisting of events, transitory states, unknown and gaps. Events were annotations that matched AP classifications (sit, stand and move) consisting of at least 3 IMGs, transitory states were posture annotations fewer than 3 IMGs, unknown were IMGs that could not be accurately classified, and gaps were time between annotations. For analyses, annotation and AP output were converted to one-sec epochs and matched second-by-second. Total and average length of visits and events are reported in minutes. Bias and 95% CIs for event posture times from IMGs to AP posture times were calculated to determine accuracy and precision. Confusion matrices using total AP posture times were computed to determine misclassification.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>43 visits were analyzed with a total visit and event time of 5027.73 and 4237.23 minutes and average visit and event lengths being 116.92 and 98.54 minutes, respectively. Bias was not statistically significant for sitting but significant for standing and movement (0.84, -6.87 and 6.04 minutes). From confusion matrices, IMGs correctly classified sitting, standing and movement 85.69%, 54.87%, and 69.41% of total AP time, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>WC IMGs provide a good estimation of overall sitting time but underestimate standing and overestimate movement time. Future work is warranted to improve posture classifications and examine IMG accuracy and precision in assessing activity type behaviors.</p>","PeriodicalId":73572,"journal":{"name":"Journal for the measurement of physical behaviour","volume":" ","pages":"47-52"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8320753/pdf/nihms-1672918.pdf","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal for the measurement of physical behaviour","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1123/jmpb.2020-0038","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/2/24 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Purpose: To assess the convergent validity of body worn wearable camera (WC) still-images (IMGs) for determining posture compared with activPAL (AP) classifications.

Methods: Participants (n=16, mean age 46.7±23.8yrs, 9F) wore an Autographer WC above the xyphoid process and an AP during three, 2hr free-living visits. IMGs were captured on average 8.47 seconds apart and were annotated with output consisting of events, transitory states, unknown and gaps. Events were annotations that matched AP classifications (sit, stand and move) consisting of at least 3 IMGs, transitory states were posture annotations fewer than 3 IMGs, unknown were IMGs that could not be accurately classified, and gaps were time between annotations. For analyses, annotation and AP output were converted to one-sec epochs and matched second-by-second. Total and average length of visits and events are reported in minutes. Bias and 95% CIs for event posture times from IMGs to AP posture times were calculated to determine accuracy and precision. Confusion matrices using total AP posture times were computed to determine misclassification.

Results: 43 visits were analyzed with a total visit and event time of 5027.73 and 4237.23 minutes and average visit and event lengths being 116.92 and 98.54 minutes, respectively. Bias was not statistically significant for sitting but significant for standing and movement (0.84, -6.87 and 6.04 minutes). From confusion matrices, IMGs correctly classified sitting, standing and movement 85.69%, 54.87%, and 69.41% of total AP time, respectively.

Conclusion: WC IMGs provide a good estimation of overall sitting time but underestimate standing and overestimate movement time. Future work is warranted to improve posture classifications and examine IMG accuracy and precision in assessing activity type behaviors.

可穿戴相机静止图像在自由生活条件下评估姿势的验证。
目的:与activPAL (AP)分类相比,评估穿戴式可穿戴相机(WC)静止图像(IMGs)在确定姿势方面的收敛有效性。方法:参与者(n=16,平均年龄46.7±23.8岁,9F)在三次2小时的自由生活访问中,在骨突上方佩戴Autographer WC和AP。平均间隔8.47秒捕获img,并使用由事件、临时状态、未知和间隙组成的输出进行注释。事件是至少包含3个img的AP分类(坐、站和移动)的注释,暂态是少于3个img的姿势注释,未知是无法准确分类的img,间隔是注释之间的时间。为了进行分析,将注释和AP输出转换为一秒的epoch,并逐秒匹配。访问和事件的总长度和平均长度以分钟为单位报告。计算从IMGs到AP姿势时间的事件姿势时间的偏差和95% ci,以确定准确性和精度。使用总AP姿势时间计算混淆矩阵以确定误分类。结果:共分析43次就诊,总就诊时间为5027.73分钟,事件时间为4237.23分钟,平均就诊时间为116.92分钟,事件时间为98.54分钟。坐着的偏差无统计学意义,但站立和活动的偏差显著(0.84分钟,-6.87分钟和6.04分钟)。从混淆矩阵来看,IMGs正确分类坐姿、站立和运动的时间分别为85.69%、54.87%和69.41%。结论:WC - IMGs可以很好地估计整体坐着时间,但低估了站立时间,高估了运动时间。未来的工作需要改进姿势分类,并检查IMG在评估活动类型行为方面的准确性和精度。
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