Ability of thigh-worn ActiGraph and activPAL monitors to classify posture and motion

Jeremy A Steeves, Heather R Bowles, James J McClain, Kevin W Dodd, Robert J Brychta, Juan Wang, Kong Y Chen, Jeremy A Steeves, Heather R Bowles, James J McClain, Kevin W Dodd, Robert J Brychta, Juan Wang, Kong Y Chen

Abstract

Purpose: This study compared sitting, standing, and stepping classifications from thigh-worn ActiGraph and activPAL monitors under laboratory and free-living conditions.

Methods: Adults wore both monitors on the right thigh while performing activities (six sitting, two standing, nine stepping, and one cycling) and writing on a whiteboard with intermittent stepping under laboratory conditions (n = 21) and under free-living conditions for 3 d (n = 18). Percent time correctly classified was calculated under laboratory conditions. Between-monitor agreement and weighted κ were calculated under free-living conditions.

Results: In the laboratory, both monitors correctly classified 100% of standing time and >95% of the time spent in four of six sitting postures. Both monitors demonstrated misclassification of laboratory stool sitting time (ActiGraph 14% vs. activPAL 95%). ActivPAL misclassified 14% of the time spent sitting with legs outstretched; ActiGraph was 100% accurate. Monitors were >95% accurate for stepping, although ActiGraph was less so for descending stairs (86%), ascending stairs (92%), and running at 2.91 m·s(-1) (93%). Monitors classified whiteboard writing differently (ActiGraph 83% standing/15% stepping vs. activPAL 98% standing/2% stepping). ActivPAL classified 93% of cycling time as stepping, whereas ActiGraph classified <1% of cycling time as stepping. During free-living wear, monitors had substantial agreement (86% observed; weighted κ = 0.77). Monitors classified similar amounts of time as sitting (ActiGraph 64% vs. activPAL 62%). There were differences in time recorded as standing (ActiGraph 21% vs. activPAL 27%) and stepping (ActiGraph 15% vs. activPAL 11%).

Conclusions: Differences in data processing algorithms may have resulted in the observed disagreement in posture and activity classification between thigh-worn ActiGraph and activPAL. Despite between-monitor agreement in classifying sitting time under free-living conditions, ActiGraph appears to be more sensitive to free-living upright walking motions than activPAL.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Figures

FIGURE 1—
FIGURE 1—
Monitor arrangement. ActiGraph and activPAL™ were worn on the front midline of the right thigh midway between the hip and the knee joint.

References

    1. Ainsworth B, Haskell W, Herrmann S, et al. The Compendium of Physical Activities Tracking Guide [Internet] [cited 2013 May 5]. Available from: .
    1. Aminian S, Hinckson EA. Examining the validity of the ActivPAL monitor in measuring posture and ambulatory movement in children. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2012;9:119.
    1. Bassett DR, John D, Conger SA, Rider BC, Passmore RM, Clark JM. Detection of lying down, sitting, standing, and stepping using two ActivPAL monitors. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2014;46(10): 2025–9.
    1. Butte NF, Ekelund U, Westerterp KR. Assessing physical activity using wearable monitors: measures of physical activity. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2012;44(1 Suppl):S5–12.
    1. Callaway W, Chumlea WC, Bouchard C, et al. Circumferences In: Lohman TG, Roche AF, Martorell R, editors. Anthropometric Standardization Reference Manual. Champaign (IL): Human Kinetics Books; 1988. pp. 39–47.
    1. Carr LJ, Mahar M. Accuracy of intensity and inclinometer output of three activity monitors for identification of sedentary behavior and light-intensity activity. J Obes [Internet]. 2012. [cited 2014 May 31]. Available from: . doi: 10.1155/2012/460271.
    1. Chen KY, Bassett DRJ. The technology of accelerometry-based activity monitors: current and future. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2005; 37(11 suppl):S490–500.
    1. Chen KY, Janz KF, Zhu W, Brychta RJ. Redefining the roles of sensors in objective physical activity monitoring. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2012;44(1 suppl):S13–23.
    1. Choi L, Liu Z, Matthews CE, Buchowski MS. Validation of accelerometer wear and nonwear time classification algorithm. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2011;43(2):357–64.
    1. Craft LL, Zderic TW, Gapstur SM, et al. Evidence that women meeting physical activity guidelines do not sit less: an observational inclinometry study. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. Available from . doi: 10.1186/1479-5868-9-122.
    1. Dall PM, Kerr A. Frequency of the sit to stand task: an observational study of free-living adults. Appl Ergon. 2010;41(1):58–61.
    1. Davies G, Reilly JJ, Paton JY. Objective measurement of posture and posture transitions in the pre-school child. Physiol Meas. 2012; 33:1913–21.
    1. Dijkstra B, Kamsma YP, Zijlstra W. Detection of gait and postures using a miniaturized triaxial accelerometer-based system: accuracy in patients with mild to moderate Parkinson’s disease. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2010;91(8):1272–7.
    1. Grant PM, Ryan CG, Tigbe WW, Granat MH. The validation of a novel activity monitor in the measurement of posture and motion during everyday activities. Br J Sports Med. 2006;40(12):992–7.
    1. Hamilton MT, Hamilton DG, Zderic TW. Role of low energy expenditure and sitting in obesity, metabolic syndrome, type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular disease. Diabetes. 2007;56(11):2655–67.
    1. Hart TL, Ainsworth BE, Tudor-Locke C. Objective and subjective measures of sedentary behavior and physical activity. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2011;43(3):449–56.
    1. Healy GN, Wijndaele K, Dunstan DW, et al. Objectively measured sedentary time, physical activity, and metabolic risk: the Australian Diabetes, Obesity and Lifestyle Study (AusDiab). Diabetes Care. 2008;31(2):369–71.
    1. Kerr J, Marshall SJ, Godbole S, et al. Using the SenseCam to improve classifications of sedentary behavior in free-living settings. Am J Prev Med. 2013;44(3):290–6.
    1. Kozey-Keadle S, Libertine A, Lyden K, Staudenmayer J, Freedson PS. Validation of wearable monitors for assessing sedentary behavior. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2011;43(8):1561–7.
    1. Kozey-Keadle S, Libertine A, Staudenmayer J, Freedson P. The feasibility of reducing and measuring sedentary time among over-weight, non-exercising office workers. J Obes [Internet]. 2012. [cited 2014 May 31]. Available from: . doi: 10.1155/2012/282303.
    1. Levine JA, Lanningham-Foster LM, McCrady SK, et al. Interindividual variation in posture allocation: possible role in human obesity. Science. 2005;28(307):584–6.
    1. Matthews CE, George SM, Moore SC, et al. Amount of time spent in sedentary behaviors and cause-specific mortality in US adults. Am J Clin Nutr. 2012;95(2):437–45.
    1. McMahon GC, Brychta RJ, Chen KY. Validation of the Actigraph (GT3X) inclinometer function. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2010; 42(5):489–90.
    1. Oliver M, Schofield GM, Badland HM, Shepherd J. Utility of accelerometer thresholds for classifying sitting in office workers. Prev Med. 2010;51(5):357–60.
    1. Patel AV, Bernstein L, Deka A, et al. Leisure time spent sitting in relation to total mortality in a prospective cohort of US adults. Am J Epidemiol. 2010;172(4):419–29.
    1. Powell KE, Paluch AE, Blair SN. Physical activity for health: What kind? How much? How intense? On top of what? Annu Rev Public Health. 2011;32:349–65.
    1. Rowlands AV. Accelerometer assessment of physical activity in children: an update. Pediatr Exerc Sci. 2007;19(3):252–66.
    1. Ryan CG, Grant PM, Tigbe WW, Granat MH. The validity and reliability of a novel activity monitor as a measure of walking. Br J Sports Med. 2006;40:779–84.
    1. Skotte J, KorshLj M, Kristiansen J, Hanisch C, Holtermann A. Detection of physical activity types using triaxial accelerometers. J Phys Act Health. 2014;11(1):76–84.
    1. Smorawinski J, Kaciuba-Uscilko H, Nazar K, et al. Effects of three-day bed rest on metabolic, hormonal and circulatory responses to an oral glucose load in endurance or strength trained athletes and untrained subjects. J Physiol Pharmacol. 2000;51: 279–89.
    1. Trost SG, McIver KL, Pate RR. Conducting accelerometer-based activity assessments in field-based research. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2005;37(11 suppl):S531–43.
    1. Trost SG, Loprinzi PD, Moore R, et al. Comparison of accelerometer cut points for predicting activity intensity in youth. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2011;43(7):1360–8.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors en medewerkers

Medische omstandigheden

Geneesmiddelinterventies

3
Abonneren