Literature DB >> 18635874

Comparing the performance of three generations of ActiGraph accelerometers.

Megan P Rothney1, Gregory A Apker, Yanna Song, Kong Y Chen.   

Abstract

ActiGraph accelerometers are a useful tool for objective assessment of physical activity in clinical and epidemiological studies. Several generations of ActiGraph are being used; however, little work has been done to verify that measurements are consistent across generations. This study employed mechanical oscillations to characterize the dynamic response and intermonitor variability of three generations of ActiGraph monitors, from the oldest 7164 (n = 13), 71256 (n = 12), to the newest GT1M (n = 12). The response due to independent radius (22.1-60.4 mm) and frequency (25-250 rpm) changes were measured, as well as intermonitor variability within each generation. The 7164 and 71256 have similar relationships between activity counts and radius (P = 0.229) but were significantly different from the GT1M (P < 0.001). The frequency responses were nonlinear in all three generations. Although the response curve shapes were similar, the differences between generations at various frequencies were significant (P < 0.017), especially in the extremes of the measurement range. Intermonitor variability was markedly reduced in the GT1M compared with the 7164 and 71256. Other measurement differences between generations include decreased peak counts and decreased sensitivity in low-frequency detection in the GT1M. The results of this study revealed an improvement of the intermonitor variability by the GT1M monitor. However, the reduced sensitivity in low-count ranges in the GT1M may not be well suited for monitoring sedentary or light-intensity movements. Furthermore, the algorithms for energy expenditure predictions developed using older 7164 monitors may need to be modified for the GT1M.

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18635874      PMCID: PMC2576046          DOI: 10.1152/japplphysiol.90641.2008

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Appl Physiol (1985)        ISSN: 0161-7567


  22 in total

1.  Assessment of physical activity with the Computer Science and Applications, Inc., accelerometer: laboratory versus field validation.

Authors:  J F Nichols; C G Morgan; L E Chabot; J F Sallis; K J Calfas
Journal:  Res Q Exerc Sport       Date:  2000-03       Impact factor: 2.500

2.  Estimation of energy expenditure using CSA accelerometers at hip and wrist sites.

Authors:  A M Swartz; S J Strath; D R Bassett; W L O'Brien; G A King; B E Ainsworth
Journal:  Med Sci Sports Exerc       Date:  2000-09       Impact factor: 5.411

3.  Validity of accelerometry for the assessment of moderate intensity physical activity in the field.

Authors:  D Hendelman; K Miller; C Baggett; E Debold; P Freedson
Journal:  Med Sci Sports Exerc       Date:  2000-09       Impact factor: 5.411

4.  Technical reliability of the CSA activity monitor: The EarlyBird Study.

Authors:  Brad S Metcalf; John S H Curnow; Colin Evans; Linda D Voss; Terence J Wilkin
Journal:  Med Sci Sports Exerc       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 5.411

5.  Validity of four motion sensors in measuring moderate intensity physical activity.

Authors:  D R Bassett; B E Ainsworth; A M Swartz; S J Strath; W L O'Brien; G A King
Journal:  Med Sci Sports Exerc       Date:  2000-09       Impact factor: 5.411

6.  Calibration of the Computer Science and Applications, Inc. accelerometer.

Authors:  P S Freedson; E Melanson; J Sirard
Journal:  Med Sci Sports Exerc       Date:  1998-05       Impact factor: 5.411

7.  A method for measuring mechanical work and work efficiency during human activities.

Authors:  M Sun; J O Hill
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  1993-03       Impact factor: 2.712

8.  Validity of the Computer Science and Applications, Inc. (CSA) activity monitor.

Authors:  E L Melanson; P S Freedson
Journal:  Med Sci Sports Exerc       Date:  1995-06       Impact factor: 5.411

9.  Reliability of accelerometry-based activity monitors: a generalizability study.

Authors:  Gregory J Welk; Jodee A Schaben; James R Morrow
Journal:  Med Sci Sports Exerc       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 5.411

10.  Validity of physical activity intensity predictions by ActiGraph, Actical, and RT3 accelerometers.

Authors:  Megan P Rothney; Emily V Schaefer; Megan M Neumann; Leena Choi; Kong Y Chen
Journal:  Obesity (Silver Spring)       Date:  2008-05-29       Impact factor: 5.002

View more
  46 in total

1.  Accelerometer use in a physical activity intervention trial.

Authors:  Melissa A Napolitano; Kelley E Borradaile; Beth A Lewis; Jessica A Whiteley; Jaime L Longval; Alfred F Parisi; Anna E Albrecht; Christopher N Sciamanna; John M Jakicic; George D Papandonatos; Bess H Marcus
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials       Date:  2010-08-17       Impact factor: 2.226

2.  Biomechanical examination of the 'plateau phenomenon' in ActiGraph vertical activity counts.

Authors:  Dinesh John; Ross Miller; Sarah Kozey-Keadle; Graham Caldwell; Patty Freedson
Journal:  Physiol Meas       Date:  2012-01-20       Impact factor: 2.833

3.  Objective measurement of free-living physical activity (performance) in lumbar spinal stenosis: are physical activity guidelines being met?

Authors:  Justin Norden; Matthew Smuck; Aman Sinha; Richard Hu; Christy Tomkins-Lane
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2016-10-25       Impact factor: 4.166

4.  Neighborhood built environment and socioeconomic status in relation to physical activity, sedentary behavior, and weight status of adolescents.

Authors:  James F Sallis; Terry L Conway; Kelli L Cain; Jordan A Carlson; Lawrence D Frank; Jacqueline Kerr; Karen Glanz; James E Chapman; Brian E Saelens
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2018-02-09       Impact factor: 4.018

5.  Comparison of the ActiGraph 7164 and the ActiGraph GT1M during self-paced locomotion.

Authors:  Sarah L Kozey; John W Staudenmayer; Richard P Troiano; Patty S Freedson
Journal:  Med Sci Sports Exerc       Date:  2010-05       Impact factor: 5.411

6.  Validity of ActiGraph 2-regression model, Matthews cut-points, and NHANES cut-points for assessing free-living physical activity.

Authors:  Scott E Crouter; Diane M DellaValle; Jere D Haas; Edward A Frongillo; David R Bassett
Journal:  J Phys Act Health       Date:  2012-09-11

7.  Performance of the international physical activity questionnaire (short form) in subgroups of the Hong Kong chinese population.

Authors:  Paul H Lee; Y Y Yu; Ian McDowell; Gabriel M Leung; T H Lam; Sunita M Stewart
Journal:  Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act       Date:  2011-08-01       Impact factor: 6.457

8.  Prevention through Activity in Kindergarten Trial (PAKT): a cluster randomised controlled trial to assess the effects of an activity intervention in preschool children.

Authors:  Kristina Roth; Sonja Mauer; Matthias Obinger; Katharina C Ruf; Christine Graf; Susi Kriemler; Dorothea Lenz; Walter Lehmacher; Helge Hebestreit
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2010-07-12       Impact factor: 3.295

9.  Steps to Better Cardiovascular Health: How Many Steps Does It Take to Achieve Good Health and How Confident Are We in This Number?

Authors:  Catrine Tudor-Locke
Journal:  Curr Cardiovasc Risk Rep       Date:  2010-04-30

10.  Comparison of four ActiGraph accelerometers during walking and running.

Authors:  Dinesh John; Brian Tyo; David R Bassett
Journal:  Med Sci Sports Exerc       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 5.411

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.