Impact of Continuous Focal Sampling Time Thresholds on Physical Activity Metrics When Using Video-Recorded Direct Observation

Julian Martinez, J. Staudenmayer, S. Strath
{"title":"Impact of Continuous Focal Sampling Time Thresholds on Physical Activity Metrics When Using Video-Recorded Direct Observation","authors":"Julian Martinez, J. Staudenmayer, S. Strath","doi":"10.1123/jmpb.2023-0004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: To determine differences in physical activity metrics between 1-, 5-, and 10-s direct observation (DO) time thresholds and compare annotation completion time between different time thresholds. Methods: Participants (n = 10, mean age 40.7 ± 22.3 years, five males) were video recorded for 2 hr within a free-living setting. DO videos were annotated by one experienced annotator with a priori developed Posture and Behavior schemas. The annotation order of video, time threshold, and schema used was randomized. For analysis, annotations were collapsed into posture and behavior domains. Total video time is reported. Time to code videos, overall percent agreement, and statistical bias of each posture and behavior domain for the 5-s time threshold and 10-s time threshold were compared to 1-s time threshold output. Results: 19.7 hr of DO were recorded. On average, the 1-s time threshold took 183.9 ± 34.2 min to annotate with the Posture schema and 118.8 ± 23.6 min with the Behavior schema. Under the Posture schema, the 5-s time threshold was 31.7% faster, had 91.5% agreement, and all biases were <±5 min, while the 10-s time threshold was 43.6% faster, had 89.2% agreement, and had biases ranging from −7.59 to 5.21 min. Under the Behavior schema, the 5-s time threshold was 16.0% faster, had 92.0% agreement, and had all biases <±2.1 min, while the 10-s time threshold was 27.6% faster, had 88.3% agreement, and had all biases <±3.9 min. Conclusion: Longer DO annotation time thresholds are accurate and faster but less precise for certain posture and behavior domains when compared to criterion 1-s time threshold in healthy adults.","PeriodicalId":73572,"journal":{"name":"Journal for the measurement of physical behaviour","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal for the measurement of physical behaviour","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1123/jmpb.2023-0004","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: To determine differences in physical activity metrics between 1-, 5-, and 10-s direct observation (DO) time thresholds and compare annotation completion time between different time thresholds. Methods: Participants (n = 10, mean age 40.7 ± 22.3 years, five males) were video recorded for 2 hr within a free-living setting. DO videos were annotated by one experienced annotator with a priori developed Posture and Behavior schemas. The annotation order of video, time threshold, and schema used was randomized. For analysis, annotations were collapsed into posture and behavior domains. Total video time is reported. Time to code videos, overall percent agreement, and statistical bias of each posture and behavior domain for the 5-s time threshold and 10-s time threshold were compared to 1-s time threshold output. Results: 19.7 hr of DO were recorded. On average, the 1-s time threshold took 183.9 ± 34.2 min to annotate with the Posture schema and 118.8 ± 23.6 min with the Behavior schema. Under the Posture schema, the 5-s time threshold was 31.7% faster, had 91.5% agreement, and all biases were <±5 min, while the 10-s time threshold was 43.6% faster, had 89.2% agreement, and had biases ranging from −7.59 to 5.21 min. Under the Behavior schema, the 5-s time threshold was 16.0% faster, had 92.0% agreement, and had all biases <±2.1 min, while the 10-s time threshold was 27.6% faster, had 88.3% agreement, and had all biases <±3.9 min. Conclusion: Longer DO annotation time thresholds are accurate and faster but less precise for certain posture and behavior domains when compared to criterion 1-s time threshold in healthy adults.
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
使用录像直接观察时,连续焦点采样时间阈值对身体活动指标的影响
目的:确定1秒、5秒和10秒直接观察(DO)时间阈值之间的身体活动指标差异,并比较不同时间阈值之间的注释完成时间。方法:参与者(n = 10,平均年龄40.7±22.3岁,5名男性)在自由生活环境中进行2小时的视频记录。由一名经验丰富的注释员用先验开发的姿势和行为图式对DO视频进行注释。视频标注顺序、时间阈值、模式使用随机化。为了便于分析,注释被分解为姿态和行为域。报告总视频时间。将5秒时间阈值和10秒时间阈值的每个姿势和行为域的编码时间、总体一致性和统计偏差与1秒时间阈值输出进行比较。结果:记录19.7 hr DO。姿势图式的1-s时间阈值平均为183.9±34.2 min,行为图式的1-s时间阈值为118.8±23.6 min。姿势模式下,5-s时间阈值快了31.7%,一致性91.5%,偏差均<±5 min; 10-s时间阈值快了43.6%,一致性89.2%,偏差范围为−7.59 ~ 5.21 min。行为模式下,5-s时间阈值快了16.0%,一致性92.0%,偏差均<±2.1 min; 10-s时间阈值快了27.6%,一致性88.3%,偏差均<±3.9 min。与健康成人标准1-s时间阈值相比,较长的DO注释时间阈值准确且更快,但在某些姿势和行为领域精度较低。
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