PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to explore whether gyroscope and magnetometer data from the ActiGraph GT9X improved accelerometer-based predictions of energy expenditure (EE). METHODS: Thirty participants (mean ± SD: age, 23.0 ± 2.3 yr; body mass index, 25.2 ± 3.9 kg·m) volunteered to complete the study. Participants wore five GT9X monitors (right hip, both wrists, and both ankles) while performing 10 activities ranging from rest to running. A Cosmed K4b was worn during the trial, as a criterion measure of EE (30-s averages) expressed in METs. Triaxial accelerometer data (80 Hz) were converted to milli-G using Euclidean norm minus one (ENMO; 1-s epochs). Gyroscope data (100 Hz) were expressed as a vector magnitude (GVM) in degrees per second (1-s epochs) and magnetometer data (100 Hz) were expressed as direction changes per 5 s. Minutes 4-6 of each activity were used for analysis. Three two-regression algorithms were developed for each wear location: 1) ENMO, 2) ENMO and GVM, and 3) ENMO, GVM, and direction changes. Leave-one-participant-out cross-validation was used to evaluate the root mean square error (RMSE) and mean absolute percent error (MAPE) of each algorithm. RESULTS: Adding gyroscope to accelerometer-only algorithms resulted in RMSE reductions between 0.0 METs (right wrist) and 0.17 METs (right ankle), and MAPE reductions between 0.1% (right wrist) and 6.0% (hip). When direction changes were added, RMSE changed by ≤0.03 METs and MAPE by ≤0.21%. CONCLUSIONS: The combined use of gyroscope and accelerometer at the hip and ankles improved individual-level prediction of EE compared with accelerometer only. For the wrists, adding gyroscope produced negligible changes. The magnetometer did not meaningfully improve estimates for any algorithms.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to explore whether gyroscope and magnetometer data from the ActiGraph GT9X improved accelerometer-based predictions of energy expenditure (EE). METHODS: Thirty participants (mean ± SD: age, 23.0 ± 2.3 yr; body mass index, 25.2 ± 3.9 kg·m) volunteered to complete the study. Participants wore five GT9X monitors (right hip, both wrists, and both ankles) while performing 10 activities ranging from rest to running. A Cosmed K4b was worn during the trial, as a criterion measure of EE (30-s averages) expressed in METs. Triaxial accelerometer data (80 Hz) were converted to milli-G using Euclidean norm minus one (ENMO; 1-s epochs). Gyroscope data (100 Hz) were expressed as a vector magnitude (GVM) in degrees per second (1-s epochs) and magnetometer data (100 Hz) were expressed as direction changes per 5 s. Minutes 4-6 of each activity were used for analysis. Three two-regression algorithms were developed for each wear location: 1) ENMO, 2) ENMO and GVM, and 3) ENMO, GVM, and direction changes. Leave-one-participant-out cross-validation was used to evaluate the root mean square error (RMSE) and mean absolute percent error (MAPE) of each algorithm. RESULTS: Adding gyroscope to accelerometer-only algorithms resulted in RMSE reductions between 0.0 METs (right wrist) and 0.17 METs (right ankle), and MAPE reductions between 0.1% (right wrist) and 6.0% (hip). When direction changes were added, RMSE changed by ≤0.03 METs and MAPE by ≤0.21%. CONCLUSIONS: The combined use of gyroscope and accelerometer at the hip and ankles improved individual-level prediction of EE compared with accelerometer only. For the wrists, adding gyroscope produced negligible changes. The magnetometer did not meaningfully improve estimates for any algorithms.
Authors: Sai Krupa Das; Akari J Miki; Caroline M Blanchard; Edward Sazonov; Cheryl H Gilhooly; Sujit Dey; Colton B Wolk; Chor San H Khoo; James O Hill; Robin P Shook Journal: Adv Nutr Date: 2022-02-01 Impact factor: 11.567
Authors: Steve M Douglas; Grace M Hawkins; Kristoffer S Berlin; Scott E Crouter; Leonard H Epstein; John G Thomas; Hollie A Raynor Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2020-09-17 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: L Veras; F Diniz-Sousa; G Boppre; V Devezas; H Santos-Sousa; J Preto; J P Vilas-Boas; L Machado; J Oliveira; H Fonseca Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2020-01-21 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: Samantha F Ehrlich; Amanda J Casteel; Scott E Crouter; Paul R Hibbing; Monique M Hedderson; Susan D Brown; Maren Galarce; Dawn P Coe; David R Bassett; Assiamira Ferrara Journal: J Meas Phys Behav Date: 2020-06
Authors: Sunku Kwon; Neng Wan; Ryan D Burns; Timothy A Brusseau; Youngwon Kim; Santosh Kumar; Emre Ertin; David W Wetter; Cho Y Lam; Ming Wen; Wonwoo Byun Journal: Sensors (Basel) Date: 2021-02-18 Impact factor: 3.576
Authors: Anna C Rivara; Margaret Corley; Courtney C Choy; Rachel L Duckham; Alysa Pomer; Muagututia Sefuiva Reupena; Satupaitea Viali; Take Naseri; Erin E Kershaw; Scott E Crouter; Stephen T McGarvey; Richard G Bribiescas; Claudia Valeggia; Nicola L Hawley Journal: Am J Hum Biol Date: 2021-07-14 Impact factor: 1.937