PURPOSE: The objective of this study is to compare step outputs obtained from waist and wrist accelerometer attachment sites under laboratory and free-living conditions. METHODS: Under the laboratory condition, participants concurrently wore ActiGraph accelerometers at their waist and nondominant wrist while walking/running at treadmill speeds between 14 and 188 m·min. Visually counted steps served as a criterion standard. Participants then wore both accelerometers for 7 d. All accelerometer step data were processed applying both the manufacturer's default and low-frequency extension filters. Paired sample t-tests were used to evaluate mean differences in criterion steps per minute and the four (attachment site × filter) estimates produced from the waist- and wrist-worn accelerometers in the laboratory study. Free-living differences in mean steps per day detected between the waist and wrist (considering both filters) were computed. RESULTS: Relative to visually counted steps, the waist attachment site generally outperformed the wrist attachment site at most speeds, regardless of the applied filtering process. Under free-living conditions, the waist-worn accelerometer detected 6743 ± 2398 (default filter) and 13,029 ± 3734 (low-frequency extension) steps per day. The concurrently worn wrist accelerometer detected 9301 ± 2887 (default filter) and 15,493 ± 3958 (low-frequency extension) steps per day. CONCLUSION: The wrist attachment site detected consistently fewer visually counted steps than the waist attachment site at most treadmill speeds during laboratory testing. In contrast, the wrist attachment site produced a higher average step count (ranging from approximately 2500 to 8700 more steps per day under free-living conditions, dependent on the filtering process applied) than the waist attachment site under free-living conditions. In conclusion, step outputs obtained from waist- and wrist-worn accelerometer attachment sites are generally not comparable under either laboratory or free-living conditions.
PURPOSE: The objective of this study is to compare step outputs obtained from waist and wrist accelerometer attachment sites under laboratory and free-living conditions. METHODS: Under the laboratory condition, participants concurrently wore ActiGraph accelerometers at their waist and nondominant wrist while walking/running at treadmill speeds between 14 and 188 m·min. Visually counted steps served as a criterion standard. Participants then wore both accelerometers for 7 d. All accelerometer step data were processed applying both the manufacturer's default and low-frequency extension filters. Paired sample t-tests were used to evaluate mean differences in criterion steps per minute and the four (attachment site × filter) estimates produced from the waist- and wrist-worn accelerometers in the laboratory study. Free-living differences in mean steps per day detected between the waist and wrist (considering both filters) were computed. RESULTS: Relative to visually counted steps, the waist attachment site generally outperformed the wrist attachment site at most speeds, regardless of the applied filtering process. Under free-living conditions, the waist-worn accelerometer detected 6743 ± 2398 (default filter) and 13,029 ± 3734 (low-frequency extension) steps per day. The concurrently worn wrist accelerometer detected 9301 ± 2887 (default filter) and 15,493 ± 3958 (low-frequency extension) steps per day. CONCLUSION: The wrist attachment site detected consistently fewer visually counted steps than the waist attachment site at most treadmill speeds during laboratory testing. In contrast, the wrist attachment site produced a higher average step count (ranging from approximately 2500 to 8700 more steps per day under free-living conditions, dependent on the filtering process applied) than the waist attachment site under free-living conditions. In conclusion, step outputs obtained from waist- and wrist-worn accelerometer attachment sites are generally not comparable under either laboratory or free-living conditions.
Authors: Jeanne M Ferrante; Katie A Devine; Alicja Bator; Ashley Rodgers; Pamela A Ohman-Strickland; Elisa V Bandera; Kevin O Hwang Journal: Transl Behav Med Date: 2020-10-08 Impact factor: 3.046
Authors: Michael C Robertson; Charles E Green; Yue Liao; Casey P Durand; Karen M Basen-Engquist Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2019-12-23 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Yue Liao; Michael C Robertson; Andrea Winne; Ivan H C Wu; Thuan A Le; Diwakar D Balachandran; Karen M Basen-Engquist Journal: Transl Behav Med Date: 2021-03-16 Impact factor: 3.046
Authors: C Tudor-Locke; E F Mire; T V Barreira; J M Schuna; J-P Chaput; M Fogelholm; G Hu; A Kurpad; R Kuriyan; E V Lambert; C Maher; J Maia; V Matsudo; T Olds; V Onywera; O L Sarmiento; M Standage; M S Tremblay; P Zhao; T S Church; P T Katzmarzyk Journal: Int J Obes Suppl Date: 2015-12-08
Authors: Daniel L Huber; Danny G Thomas; Michael Danduran; Timothy B Meier; Michael A McCrea; Lindsay D Nelson Journal: J Athl Train Date: 2019-08-14 Impact factor: 2.860
Authors: Yvonne A W Hartman; Esther G A Karssemeijer; Lisanne A M van Diepen; Marcel G M Olde Rikkert; Dick H J Thijssen Journal: Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord Date: 2018-08-24 Impact factor: 2.959
Authors: Kevin S Heffernan; Luis Columna; Natalie Russo; Beth A Myers; Christine E Ashby; Michael L Norris; Tiago V Barreira Journal: J Autism Dev Disord Date: 2018-02
Authors: E J Shiroma; M A Schepps; J Harezlak; K Y Chen; C E Matthews; A Koster; P Caserotti; N W Glynn; T B Harris Journal: Physiol Meas Date: 2016-09-21 Impact factor: 2.833