Free-Living Validation and Harmonization of 10 Wearable Step Count Monitors

IF 2.2 Q3 SPORT SCIENCES
Susan Park, Robert T Marcotte, Lindsay P Toth, Paige Paulus, Lindsey P. Lauricella, A. Kim, S. Crouter, Cary M. Springer, J. Staudenmayer, D. Bassett
{"title":"Free-Living Validation and Harmonization of 10 Wearable Step Count Monitors","authors":"Susan Park, Robert T Marcotte, Lindsay P Toth, Paige Paulus, Lindsey P. Lauricella, A. Kim, S. Crouter, Cary M. Springer, J. Staudenmayer, D. Bassett","doi":"10.1249/tjx.0000000000000172","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This study aimed 1) to determine the step count accuracy of numerous wrist-, hip-, and thigh-worn consumer and research monitors (and their corresponding algorithms) compared with the StepWatch (SW) across all waking hours under free-living conditions and 2) to develop correction methods to calibrate all monitors to the SW. Forty-eight participants 28 ± 12 yr old (mean ± SD) wore monitors across two waking days. Different wrist (Apple Watch Series 2, Fitbit Alta, Garmin vivofit 3, and ActiGraph GT9X), hip (Yamax Digiwalker SW-200, Omron HJ-325, GT9X, and Fitbit Zip), and thigh (activPAL) monitors were worn across 2 d, with the exception of the SW, which was worn on both days. Monitor estimates were compared with SW to compute percent of SW steps, absolute percent error, mean difference, root-mean-square error, and Pearson correlations. Monitor-specific correction factor linear regression models were fit to estimate SW steps and evaluated using leave-one-subject-out cross validation. All monitors were significantly different from the SW (P < 0.05). Consumer wrist and hip monitors underestimated SW steps (72%–91% of SW steps per day), whereas step estimates from research monitors ranged widely (67%–189%). Mean absolute percent error across all devices were greater than 10%. After a correction method was applied, all monitor estimates were not significantly different from SW steps. Overall, some consumer monitors produced step estimates that are closer to the validated SW than research-grade monitors (and their corresponding algorithms) and could be used to measure steps for healthy adults under free-living conditions. The specific correction methods may facilitate comparisons across studies and support research efforts using consumer and research monitors for large-scale population surveillance and epidemiological studies.","PeriodicalId":75243,"journal":{"name":"Translational journal of the American College of Sports Medicine","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"8","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Translational journal of the American College of Sports Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1249/tjx.0000000000000172","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SPORT SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

Abstract

ABSTRACT This study aimed 1) to determine the step count accuracy of numerous wrist-, hip-, and thigh-worn consumer and research monitors (and their corresponding algorithms) compared with the StepWatch (SW) across all waking hours under free-living conditions and 2) to develop correction methods to calibrate all monitors to the SW. Forty-eight participants 28 ± 12 yr old (mean ± SD) wore monitors across two waking days. Different wrist (Apple Watch Series 2, Fitbit Alta, Garmin vivofit 3, and ActiGraph GT9X), hip (Yamax Digiwalker SW-200, Omron HJ-325, GT9X, and Fitbit Zip), and thigh (activPAL) monitors were worn across 2 d, with the exception of the SW, which was worn on both days. Monitor estimates were compared with SW to compute percent of SW steps, absolute percent error, mean difference, root-mean-square error, and Pearson correlations. Monitor-specific correction factor linear regression models were fit to estimate SW steps and evaluated using leave-one-subject-out cross validation. All monitors were significantly different from the SW (P < 0.05). Consumer wrist and hip monitors underestimated SW steps (72%–91% of SW steps per day), whereas step estimates from research monitors ranged widely (67%–189%). Mean absolute percent error across all devices were greater than 10%. After a correction method was applied, all monitor estimates were not significantly different from SW steps. Overall, some consumer monitors produced step estimates that are closer to the validated SW than research-grade monitors (and their corresponding algorithms) and could be used to measure steps for healthy adults under free-living conditions. The specific correction methods may facilitate comparisons across studies and support research efforts using consumer and research monitors for large-scale population surveillance and epidemiological studies.
自由生活验证和协调10个可穿戴步数监视器
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
1.60
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信