Methods to assess physical activity with special reference to motion sensors and accelerometers

1991 ◽  
Vol 38 (3) ◽  
pp. 221-229 ◽  
Author(s):  
G.A.L. Meijer ◽  
K.R. Westerterp ◽  
F.M.H. Verhoeven ◽  
H.B.M. Koper ◽  
F. ten Hoor
Keyword(s):  
Physical Activity ◽  
Special Reference ◽  
Motion Sensors

scholarly journals A Comparison of Two Motion Sensors for the Assessment of Free-Living Physical Activity of Adolescents

2010 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 1558-1576 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roman Cuberek ◽  
Walid El Ansari ◽  
Karel Frömel ◽  
Krzysztof Skalik ◽  
Erik Sigmund
Keyword(s):  
Physical Activity ◽  
Motion Sensors ◽  
Free Living

scholarly journals Quantifying Habitual Physical Activity and Sedentariness in Older Adults—Different Outcomes of Two Simultaneously Body-Worn Motion Sensor Approaches and a Self-Estimation

Sensors ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (7) ◽  
pp. 1877
Author(s):  
Rieke Trumpf ◽  
Wiebren Zijlstra ◽  
Peter Haussermann ◽  
Tim Fleiner
Keyword(s):  
Physical Activity ◽  
Older Adults ◽  
Community Dwelling ◽  
Habitual Physical Activity ◽  
Motion Sensor ◽  
Motion Sensors ◽  
Healthy Older Adults ◽  
Lower Back ◽  
Hybrid Motion ◽  
Accurate Quantification

Applicable and accurate assessment methods are required for a clinically relevant quantification of habitual physical activity (PA) levels and sedentariness in older adults. The aim of this study is to compare habitual PA and sedentariness, as assessed with (1) a wrist-worn actigraph, (2) a hybrid motion sensor attached to the lower back, and (3) a self-estimation based on a questionnaire. Over the course of one week, PA of 58 community-dwelling subjectively healthy older adults was recorded. The results indicate that actigraphy overestimates the PA levels in older adults, whereas sedentariness is underestimated when compared to the hybrid motion sensor approach. Significantly longer durations (hh:mm/day) for all PA intensities were assessed with the actigraph (light: 04:19; moderate to vigorous: 05:08) when compared to the durations (hh:mm/day) that were assessed with the hybrid motion sensor (light: 01:24; moderate to vigorous: 02:21) and the self-estimated durations (hh:mm/day) (light: 02:33; moderate to vigorous: 03:04). Actigraphy-assessed durations of sedentariness (14:32 hh:mm/day) were significantly shorter when compared to the durations assessed with the hybrid motion sensor (20:15 hh:mm/day). Self-estimated duration of light intensity was significantly shorter when compared to the results of the hybrid motion sensor. The results of the present study highlight the importance of an accurate quantification of habitual PA levels and sedentariness in older adults. The use of hybrid motion sensors can offer important insights into the PA levels and PA types (e.g., sitting, lying) and it can increase the knowledge about mobility-related PA and patterns of sedentariness, while actigraphy appears to be not recommendable for this purpose.

Motion sensors for monitoring physical activity in cystic fibrosis: what is the next step?

2010 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 197-203 ◽  
Author(s):  
Judy M. Bradley ◽  
Lisa Kent ◽  
J. Stuart Elborn ◽  
Brenda O'Neill
Keyword(s):  
Physical Activity ◽  
Cystic Fibrosis ◽  
Motion Sensors

scholarly journals Description and validation of the ActiReg®: a novel instrument to measure physical activity and energy expenditure

2004 ◽  
Vol 92 (6) ◽  
pp. 1001-1008 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bo-Egil Hustvedt ◽  
Alf Christophersen ◽  
Lene R. Johnsen ◽  
Heidi Tomten ◽  
Geraldine McNeill ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Physical Activity ◽  
Energy Expenditure ◽  
Body Position ◽  
Energy Costs ◽  
Motion Sensors ◽  
Storage Unit ◽  
Doubly Labelled Water ◽  
The Right ◽  
Different Levels ◽  
Objective Recording

The ActiReg® (PreMed AS, Oslo, Norway) system is unique in using combined recordings of body position and motion alone or combined with heart rate (HR) to calculate energy expenditure (EE) and express physical activity (PA). The ActiReg® has two pairs of position and motion sensors connected by cables to a battery-operated storage unit fixed to a waist belt. Each pair of sensors was attached by medical tape to the chest and to the front of the right thigh respectively. The collected data were transferred to a personal computer and processed by a dedicated program ActiCalc®. Calculation models for EE with and without HR are presented. The models were based on literature values for the energy costs of different activities and therefore require no calibration experiments. The ActiReg® system was validated against doubly labelled water (DLW) and indirect calorimetry. The DLW validation demonstrated that neither EE calculated from ActiReg® data alone (EEAR) nor from combined ActiReg® and HR data (EEAR–HR) were statistically different from DLW results. The EEAR procedure causes some underestimation of EE >11 MJ corresponding to a PA level >2·0. This underestimation is reduced by the EEAR–HR procedure. The objective recording of the time spent in different body positions and at different levels of PA may be useful in studies of PA in different groups and in studies of whether recommendations for PA are being met. The comparative ease of data collection and calculation should make ActiReg® a useful instrument to measure habitual PA level and EE.

Convergent Validity of 3 Low Cost Motion Sensors With the ActiGraph Accelerometer

2010 ◽  
Vol 7 (5) ◽  
pp. 662-670 ◽  
Author(s):  
James J. McClain ◽  
Teresa L. Hart ◽  
Renee S. Getz ◽  
Catrine Tudor-Locke
Keyword(s):  
Physical Activity ◽  
Convergent Validity ◽  
Lower Cost ◽  
Low Cost ◽  
Assessment Instruments ◽  
Motion Sensors ◽  
Activity Time ◽  
Free Living ◽  
Time Estimates ◽  
Actigraph Accelerometer

Background:This study evaluated the utility of several lower cost physical activity (PA) assessment instruments for detecting PA volume (steps) and intensity (time in MVPA or activity time) using convergent methods of assessment.Methods:Participants included 26 adults (9 male) age 27.3 ± 7.1 years with a BMI of 23.8 ± 2.8 kg/m2. Instruments evaluated included the Omron HJ-151 (OM), New Lifestyles NL-1000 (NL), Walk4Life W4L Pro (W4L), and ActiGraph GT1M (AG). Participants wore all instruments during a laboratory phase, consisting of 10 single minute treadmill walking bouts ranging in speed from 40 to 112 m/min, and immediate following the laboratory phase and during the remainder of their free-living day (11.3 ± 1.5 hours). Previously validated AG MVPA cutpoints were used for comparison with OM, NL, and W4L MVPA or activity time outputs during the laboratory and free-living phase.Results:OM and NL produced similar MVPA estimates during free-living to commonly used AG walking cutpoints, and W4L activity time estimates were similar to one AG lifestyle cutpoint evaluated.Conclusion:Current findings indicate that the OM, NL, and W4L, ranging in price from $15 to $49, can provide reasonable estimates of free-living MVPA or activity time in comparison with a range of AG walking and lifestyle cutpoints.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document