Alex V Rowlands1, FranÇois Fraysse, Mike Catt, Victoria H Stiles, Rebecca M Stanley, Roger G Eston, Tim S Olds. 1. 1Health and Use of Time Group, Sansom Institute for Health Research, Division of Health Sciences, University of South Australia, Adelaide, AUSTRALIA; 2Exercise for Health and Human Performance Group, Sansom Institute for Health Research, Division of Health Sciences, University of South Australia, Adelaide, AUSTRALIA; 3Institute for Ageing and Health, Faculty of Medicine, Newcastle University, Newcastle, UNITED KINGDOM; and 4Sport and Health Sciences, College of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, UNITED KINGDOM.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Accelerometers that provide triaxial measured acceleration data are now available. However, equivalence of output between brands cannot be assumed and testing is necessary to determine whether features of the acceleration signal are interchangeable. PURPOSE: This study aimed to establish the equivalence of output between two brands of monitor in a laboratory and in a free-living environment. METHODS: For part 1, 38 adults performed nine laboratory-based activities while wearing an ActiGraph GT3X+ and GENEActiv (Gravity Estimator of Normal Everyday Activity) at the hip. For part 2, 58 children age 10-12 yr wore a GT3X+ and GENEActiv at the hip for 7 d in a free-living setting. RESULTS: For part 1, the magnitude of time domain features from the GENEActiv was greater than that from the GT3X+. However, frequency domain features compared well, with perfect agreement of the dominant frequency for 97%-100% of participants for most activities. For part 2, mean daily acceleration measured by the two brands was correlated (r = 0.93, P < 0.001, respectively) but the magnitude was approximately 15% lower for the GT3X+ than that for the GENEActiv at the hip. CONCLUSIONS: Frequency domain-based classification algorithms should be transferable between monitors, and it should be possible to apply time domain-based classification algorithms developed for one device to the other by applying an affine conversion on the measured acceleration values. The strong relation between accelerations measured by the two brands suggests that habitual activity level and activity patterns assessed by the GENE and GT3X+ may compare well if analyzed appropriately.
BACKGROUND: Accelerometers that provide triaxial measured acceleration data are now available. However, equivalence of output between brands cannot be assumed and testing is necessary to determine whether features of the acceleration signal are interchangeable. PURPOSE: This study aimed to establish the equivalence of output between two brands of monitor in a laboratory and in a free-living environment. METHODS: For part 1, 38 adults performed nine laboratory-based activities while wearing an ActiGraph GT3X+ and GENEActiv (Gravity Estimator of Normal Everyday Activity) at the hip. For part 2, 58 children age 10-12 yr wore a GT3X+ and GENEActiv at the hip for 7 d in a free-living setting. RESULTS: For part 1, the magnitude of time domain features from the GENEActiv was greater than that from the GT3X+. However, frequency domain features compared well, with perfect agreement of the dominant frequency for 97%-100% of participants for most activities. For part 2, mean daily acceleration measured by the two brands was correlated (r = 0.93, P < 0.001, respectively) but the magnitude was approximately 15% lower for the GT3X+ than that for the GENEActiv at the hip. CONCLUSIONS: Frequency domain-based classification algorithms should be transferable between monitors, and it should be possible to apply time domain-based classification algorithms developed for one device to the other by applying an affine conversion on the measured acceleration values. The strong relation between accelerations measured by the two brands suggests that habitual activity level and activity patterns assessed by the GENE and GT3X+ may compare well if analyzed appropriately.
Authors: Michelle W Voss; Timothy B Weng; Agnieszka Z Burzynska; Chelsea N Wong; Gillian E Cooke; Rachel Clark; Jason Fanning; Elizabeth Awick; Neha P Gothe; Erin A Olson; Edward McAuley; Arthur F Kramer Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2015-10-19 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Kishan Bakrania; Thomas Yates; Alex V Rowlands; Dale W Esliger; Sarah Bunnewell; James Sanders; Melanie Davies; Kamlesh Khunti; Charlotte L Edwardson Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-10-05 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Anna-Maiju Leinonen; Riikka Ahola; Janne Kulmala; Harto Hakonen; Henri Vähä-Ypyä; Karl-Heinz Herzig; Juha Auvinen; Sirkka Keinänen-Kiukaanniemi; Harri Sievänen; Tuija H Tammelin; Raija Korpelainen; Timo Jämsä Journal: Front Physiol Date: 2017-01-10 Impact factor: 4.566
Authors: Matti T J Heino; Keegan Knittle; Ari Haukkala; Tommi Vasankari; Nelli Hankonen Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2018-12-07 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Bruna Gonçalves C da Silva; Inácio Crochemore M da Silva; Ulf Ekelund; Soren Brage; Ken K Ong; Emanuella De Lucia Rolfe; Natália Peixoto Lima; Shana Ginar da Silva; Giovanny V Araújo de França; Bernardo Lessa Horta Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2019-04-01 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Helen Elizabeth Brown; Fiona Whittle; Stephanie T Jong; Caroline Croxson; Stephen J Sharp; Paul Wilkinson; Edward Cf Wilson; Esther Mf van Sluijs; Anna Vignoles; Kirsten Corder Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2017-09-27 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Petra Jones; Evgeny M Mirkes; Tom Yates; Charlotte L Edwardson; Mike Catt; Melanie J Davies; Kamlesh Khunti; Alex V Rowlands Journal: Sensors (Basel) Date: 2019-10-17 Impact factor: 3.576