Current State of Commercial Wearable Technology in Physical Activity Monitoring 2015-2017

Jennifer A Bunn, James W Navalta, Charles J Fountaine, Joel D Reece, Jennifer A Bunn, James W Navalta, Charles J Fountaine, Joel D Reece

Abstract

Wearable physical activity trackers are a popular and useful method to collect biometric information at rest and during exercise. The purpose of this systematic review was to summarize recent findings of wearable devices for biometric information related to steps, heart rate, and caloric expenditure for several devices that hold a large portion of the market share. Searches were conducted in both PubMed and SPORTdiscus. Filters included: humans, within the last 5 years, English, full-text, and adult 19+ years. Manuscripts were retained if they included an exercise component of 5-min or greater and had 20 or more participants. A total of 10 articles were retained for this review. Overall, wearable devices tend to underestimate energy expenditure compared to criterion laboratory measures, however at higher intensities of activity energy expenditure is underestimated. All wrist and forearm devices had a tendency to underestimate heart rate, and this error was generally greater at higher exercise intensities and those that included greater arm movement. Heart rate measurement was also typically better at rest and while exercising on a cycle ergometer compared to exercise on a treadmill or elliptical machine. Step count was underestimated at slower walking speeds and in free-living conditions, but improved accuracy at faster speeds. The majority of the studies reviewed in the present manuscript employed different methods to assess validity and reliability of wearable technology, making it difficult to compare devices. Standardized protocols would provide guidance for researchers to evaluate research-grade devices as well as commercial devices used by the lay public.

Keywords: Systematic review; energy expenditure estimation; exercise and fitness trackers; heart rate; step count; validity; wearable devices.

References

    1. An HS, Jones GC, Kang SK, Welk GJ, Lee JM. How valid are wearable physical activity trackers for measuring steps? Eur J Sport Sci. 2017;17(3):360–368.
    1. Chen MD, Kuo CC, Pellegrini CA, Hsu MJ. Accuracy of wristband activity monitors during ambulation and activities. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2016;48(10):1942–1949.
    1. Chowdhury EA, Western MJ, Nightingale TE, Peacock OJ, Thompson D. Assessment of laboratory and daily energy expenditure estimates from consumer multi-sensor physical activity monitors. PloS one. 2017;12(2):e0171720.
    1. Consumer Technology Association. Physical activity monitoring for fitness wearables: Step counting. ANSI/CTA Standard. 2016
    1. Consumer Technology Association. ANSI/CTA Standard. 2017. Methodology of measurements for features in sleep tracking consumer technology devices and applications.
    1. Duffy J, Colon A. The best fitness trackers of 2018. PC Reviews
    1. Evenson KR, Goto MM, Furberg RD. Systematic review of the validity and reliability of consumer-wearable activity trackers. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Activity. 2015;12:159.
    1. Fokkema T, Kooiman TJ, Krijnen WP, CPVDS, MDEG Reliability and validity of ten consumer activity trackers depend on walking speed. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2017;49(4):793–800.
    1. Gillinov S, Etiwy M, Wang R, Blackburn G, Phelan D, Gillinov AM, Houghtaling P, Javadikasgari H, Desai MY. Variable accuracy of wearable heart rate monitors during Aaerobic exercise. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2017;49(8):1697–1703.
    1. Huang Y, Xu J, Yu B, Shull PB. Validity of FitBit, Jawbone UP, Nike+ and other wearable devices for level and stair walking. Gait Posture. 2016;48:36–41.
    1. Jo E, Lewis K, Directo D, Kim MJ, Dolezal BA. Validation of biofeedback wearables for photoplethysmographic heart rate tracking. J Sports Sci Med. 2016;15(3):540–7.
    1. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, Clarke M, Devereaux PJ, Kleijnen J, Moher D. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000100.
    1. Nelson MB, Kaminsky LA, Dickin DC, Montoye AH. Validity of consumer-based physical activity monitors for specific activity types. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2016;48(8):1619–1628.
    1. Thompson WR. Worldwide survey of fitness trends for 2016. ACSMs Health Fit J. 2015;19(6):9–18.
    1. Thompson WR. Worldwide survey of fitness trends for 2017. ACSMs Health Fit J. 2016;20(6):8–17.
    1. Wallen MP, Gomersall SR, Keating SE, Wisloff U, Coombes JS. Accuracy of heart rate watches: implications for weight management. PloS one. 2016;11(5):e0154420.
    1. Woodman JA, Crouter SE, Bassett DR, Jr, Fitzhugh EC, Boyer WR. Accuracy of consumer monitors for estimating energy expenditure and activity type. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2017;49(2):371–377.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorit ja yhteistyökumppanit

Sairaudet

Huumeiden interventiot

3
Tilaa