How valid are wearable physical activity trackers for measuring steps?

IF 2.4 3区 医学 Q2 SPORT SCIENCES European Journal of Sport Science Pub Date : 2017-03-16 DOI:10.1080/17461391.2016.1255261
Hyun-Sung An, Gregory C. Jones, Seoungki Kang, G. Welk, Jung-Min Lee
{"title":"How valid are wearable physical activity trackers for measuring steps?","authors":"Hyun-Sung An, Gregory C. Jones, Seoungki Kang, G. Welk, Jung-Min Lee","doi":"10.1080/17461391.2016.1255261","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Wearable activity trackers have become popular for tracking individual’s daily physical activity, but little information is available to substantiate the validity of these devices in step counts. Thirty-five healthy individuals completed three conditions of activity tracker measurement: walking/jogging on a treadmill, walking over-ground on an indoor track, and a 24-hour free-living condition. Participants wore 10 activity trackers at the same time for both treadmill and over-ground protocol. Of these 10 activity trackers three were randomly given for 24-hour free-living condition. Correlations of steps measured to steps observed were r = 0.84 and r = 0.67 on a treadmill and over-ground protocol, respectively. The mean MAPE (mean absolute percentage error) score for all devices and speeds on a treadmill was 8.2% against manually counted steps. The MAPE value was higher for over-ground walking (9.9%) and even higher for the 24-hour free-living period (18.48%) on step counts. Equivalence testing for step count measurement resulted in a significant level within ±5% for the Fitbit Zip, Withings Pulse, and Jawbone UP24 and within ±10% for the Basis B1 band, Garmin VivoFit, and SenseWear Armband Mini. The results show that the Fitbit Zip and Withings Pulse provided the most accurate measures of step count under all three different conditions (i.e. treadmill, over-ground, and 24-hour condition), and considerable variability in accuracy across monitors and also by speeds and conditions.","PeriodicalId":12061,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Sport Science","volume":"60 1","pages":"360 - 368"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2017-03-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"120","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Sport Science","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2016.1255261","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SPORT SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 120

Abstract

Abstract Wearable activity trackers have become popular for tracking individual’s daily physical activity, but little information is available to substantiate the validity of these devices in step counts. Thirty-five healthy individuals completed three conditions of activity tracker measurement: walking/jogging on a treadmill, walking over-ground on an indoor track, and a 24-hour free-living condition. Participants wore 10 activity trackers at the same time for both treadmill and over-ground protocol. Of these 10 activity trackers three were randomly given for 24-hour free-living condition. Correlations of steps measured to steps observed were r = 0.84 and r = 0.67 on a treadmill and over-ground protocol, respectively. The mean MAPE (mean absolute percentage error) score for all devices and speeds on a treadmill was 8.2% against manually counted steps. The MAPE value was higher for over-ground walking (9.9%) and even higher for the 24-hour free-living period (18.48%) on step counts. Equivalence testing for step count measurement resulted in a significant level within ±5% for the Fitbit Zip, Withings Pulse, and Jawbone UP24 and within ±10% for the Basis B1 band, Garmin VivoFit, and SenseWear Armband Mini. The results show that the Fitbit Zip and Withings Pulse provided the most accurate measures of step count under all three different conditions (i.e. treadmill, over-ground, and 24-hour condition), and considerable variability in accuracy across monitors and also by speeds and conditions.
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
穿戴式运动追踪器测量步数的有效性如何?
可穿戴式活动追踪器已经成为跟踪个人日常身体活动的流行工具,但很少有信息可以证实这些设备在步数计数方面的有效性。35名健康个体完成了活动追踪器测量的三种条件:在跑步机上行走/慢跑,在室内跑道上行走,以及24小时自由生活条件。参与者在跑步机和地面上同时佩戴10个活动追踪器。在这10个活动追踪器中,有3个被随机分配到24小时的自由生活条件下。在跑步机和地面上,测量到的步数与观察到的步数的相关性分别为r = 0.84和r = 0.67。与手动计算步数相比,跑步机上所有设备和速度的平均MAPE(平均绝对百分比误差)得分为8.2%。在地上行走时MAPE值较高(9.9%),在24小时自由生活期间MAPE值更高(18.48%)。步数测量的等效性测试结果表明,Fitbit Zip、Withings Pulse和Jawbone UP24的显著水平在±5%以内,Basis B1、Garmin VivoFit和SenseWear Armband Mini的显著水平在±10%以内。结果显示,Fitbit Zip和Withings Pulse在所有三种不同的条件下(即跑步机、地上和24小时条件下)提供了最准确的步数测量,而且在不同的监视器、不同的速度和条件下,准确度有很大的差异。
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
European Journal of Sport Science
European Journal of Sport Science 医学-运动科学
CiteScore
6.60
自引率
3.10%
发文量
153
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The European Journal of Sport Science (EJSS) is the official Medline- and Thomson Reuters-listed journal of the European College of Sport Science. The editorial policy of the Journal pursues the multi-disciplinary aims of the College: to promote the highest standards of scientific study and scholarship in respect of the following fields: (a) Applied Sport Sciences; (b) Biomechanics and Motor Control; c) Physiology and Nutrition; (d) Psychology, Social Sciences and Humanities and (e) Sports and Exercise Medicine and Health.
期刊最新文献
Consecutive non-training days over a weekend for assessing cardiac parasympathetic variation in response to accumulated exercise stress Exercise intensity regulates the effect of heat stress on substrate oxidation rates during exercise Marathon pacing ability: Training characteristics and previous experience Zumba dancing and aerobic exercise can improve working memory, motor function, and depressive symptoms in female patients with Fibromyalgia Force-velocity profile changes with forearm wearable resistance during standing start sprinting
×
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