Impact of ActiGraph Sampling Rate and Intermonitor Comparability on Measures of Physical Activity in Adults

Kimberly A. Clevenger, J. Brønd, D. Arvidsson, Alexander Montoye, K. Mackintosh, M. McNarry, K. Pfeiffer
{"title":"Impact of ActiGraph Sampling Rate and Intermonitor Comparability on Measures of Physical Activity in Adults","authors":"Kimberly A. Clevenger, J. Brønd, D. Arvidsson, Alexander Montoye, K. Mackintosh, M. McNarry, K. Pfeiffer","doi":"10.1123/jmpb.2021-0016","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: ActiGraph is a commonly used, research-grade accelerometer brand, but there is little information regarding intermonitor comparability of newer models. In addition, while sampling rate has been shown to influence accelerometer metrics, its influence on measures of free-living physical activity has not been directly studied. Purpose: To examine differences in physical activity metrics due to intermonitor variability and chosen sampling rate. Methods: Adults (n = 20) wore two hip-worn ActiGraph wGT3X-BT monitors for 1 week, with one accelerometer sampling at 30 Hz and the other at 100 Hz, which was downsampled to 30 Hz. Activity intensity was classified using vector magnitude, Euclidean Norm Minus One (ENMO), and mean amplitude deviation (MAD) cut points. Equivalence testing compared outcomes. Results: There was a lack of intermonitor equivalence for ENMO, time in sedentary/light- or moderate-intensity activity according to ENMO cut points, and time in moderate-intensity activity according to MAD cut points. Between sampling rates, differences existed for time in moderate-intensity activity according to vector magnitude, ENMO, and MAD cut points, and time in sedentary/light-intensity activity according to ENMO cut points. While mean differences were small (0.1–1.7 percentage points), this would equate to differences in moderate-to vigorous-intensity activity over a 10-hr wear day of 3.6 (MAD) to 10.8 (ENMO) min/day for intermonitor comparisons or 3.6 (vector magnitude) to 5.4 (ENMO) min/day for sampling rate. Conclusions: Epoch-level intermonitor differences were larger than differences due to sampling rate, but both may impact outcomes such as time spent in each activity intensity. ENMO was the least comparable metric between monitors or sampling rates.","PeriodicalId":73572,"journal":{"name":"Journal for the measurement of physical behaviour","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal for the measurement of physical behaviour","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1123/jmpb.2021-0016","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Background: ActiGraph is a commonly used, research-grade accelerometer brand, but there is little information regarding intermonitor comparability of newer models. In addition, while sampling rate has been shown to influence accelerometer metrics, its influence on measures of free-living physical activity has not been directly studied. Purpose: To examine differences in physical activity metrics due to intermonitor variability and chosen sampling rate. Methods: Adults (n = 20) wore two hip-worn ActiGraph wGT3X-BT monitors for 1 week, with one accelerometer sampling at 30 Hz and the other at 100 Hz, which was downsampled to 30 Hz. Activity intensity was classified using vector magnitude, Euclidean Norm Minus One (ENMO), and mean amplitude deviation (MAD) cut points. Equivalence testing compared outcomes. Results: There was a lack of intermonitor equivalence for ENMO, time in sedentary/light- or moderate-intensity activity according to ENMO cut points, and time in moderate-intensity activity according to MAD cut points. Between sampling rates, differences existed for time in moderate-intensity activity according to vector magnitude, ENMO, and MAD cut points, and time in sedentary/light-intensity activity according to ENMO cut points. While mean differences were small (0.1–1.7 percentage points), this would equate to differences in moderate-to vigorous-intensity activity over a 10-hr wear day of 3.6 (MAD) to 10.8 (ENMO) min/day for intermonitor comparisons or 3.6 (vector magnitude) to 5.4 (ENMO) min/day for sampling rate. Conclusions: Epoch-level intermonitor differences were larger than differences due to sampling rate, but both may impact outcomes such as time spent in each activity intensity. ENMO was the least comparable metric between monitors or sampling rates.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
活动记录仪采样率和监测间可比性对成人身体活动测量的影响
背景:ActiGraph是一个常用的研究级加速度计品牌,但关于新型号的监视器间可比性的信息很少。此外,虽然采样率已被证明会影响加速度计指标,但其对自由生活体力活动指标的影响尚未得到直接研究。目的:检查由于监测间变异性和选择的抽样率而导致的身体活动指标的差异。方法:20名成人(n = 20)穿戴两台穿戴在臀部的ActiGraph wGT3X-BT监测仪1周,其中一台加速度计在30 Hz采样,另一台加速度计在100 Hz采样,并将其降采样至30 Hz。活动强度采用矢量幅度、欧几里得范数减一(ENMO)和平均振幅偏差(MAD)切点进行分类。等效检验比较结果。结果:ENMO、久坐/轻度或中等强度活动时间(根据ENMO切点)和中度强度活动时间(根据MAD切点)缺乏监测间等效性。在采样率之间,根据矢量大小、ENMO和MAD切割点进行中等强度活动的时间,以及根据ENMO切割点进行久坐/轻强度活动的时间存在差异。虽然平均差异很小(0.1-1.7个百分点),但这相当于10小时磨损日中高强度活动的差异,监测间比较为3.6 (MAD)至10.8 (ENMO)分钟/天,采样率为3.6(矢量量级)至5.4 (ENMO)分钟/天。结论:监测间的时代水平差异大于采样率差异,但两者都可能影响结果,如在每个活动强度中花费的时间。ENMO是监视器或采样率之间最不具有可比性的度量。
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 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Influence of Accelerometer Calibration on the Estimation of Objectively Measured Physical Activity: The Tromsø Study Criterion Validity of Accelerometers in Determining Knee-Flexion Angles During Sitting in a Laboratory Setting Comparability of 24-hr Activity Cycle Outputs From ActiGraph Counts Generated in ActiLife and RStudio Comparison of Sleep and Physical Activity Metrics From Wrist-Worn ActiGraph wGT3X-BT and GT9X Accelerometers During Free-Living in Adults Pre- Versus Postmeal Sedentary Duration—Impact on Postprandial Glucose in Older Adults With Overweight or Obesity
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1