Validation of different stepping counters during treadmill and over ground walking |
| |
| Affiliation: | 1. Sport sciences, Department of Health Science and Technology, Aalborg University, Fredrik Bajers Vej 7, DK-9220 Aalborg East, Denmark;2. Centre for Clinical Research, North Denmark Regional Hospital, Bispensgade 37, DK-9800 Hjoerring, Denmark;1. Department of Physical Therapy/Motion Analysis Center, Central Michigan University, United States;2. Department of Health Sciences, Central Michigan University,United States;1. Department for Trauma and Reconstructive Surgery, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Germany.;2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Germany;3. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Germany;1. Institute for Health and Sport (iHeS), Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia;2. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Columbia University, New York, NY, United States;3. Department of Physics, Washington & Jefferson College, Washington, PA, United States;4. Bolton Clarke Research Institute, Melbourne, Australia;1. Medical Device Research Institute, College of Science and Engineering, Flinders University, Bedford Park, Australia;2. School of Mechanical, Medical and Process Engineering, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia;3. Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy;4. Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia;5. Department of Mechanical Science and Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, USA;1. Faculty of Sport and Health Sciences and Gerontology Research Center, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland;2. Deakin University, Institute for Physical Activity and Nutrition (IPAN), School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Geelong, Australia;3. Physical Education and Sports Science Academic Group, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore |
| |
| Abstract: | BackgroundCommercially available physical activity trackers are very popular in the general population and are increasingly common in clinical and research settings. The marketfor activity trackers are rapidly expanding, requiring them to be validated on an ongoing basis. Different approaches have been used for validating these devices. Studies using treadmills shows good step-counting accuracy although test performed in field tests settings are limited.Research questionDoes step-counting validity differ between a field test and a treadmill protocol for different types of activity trackers?MethodsThirty healthy subjects participated in this study, mean age was 28.2 (± 4.33) years, body mass 78.9 (± 12.9) kg, and height 178.5 (± 9.7) cm. A treadmill protocol with three different walking speeds (2, 3 and 4 km/h) and a 982 m field test was used. During the tests, participants’ feet were filmed using a waist-mounted camera. The number of steps were extracted from the video data and used for comparison with four different step counters: a) Polar M200; b) Polar A300; c) Dunlop pedometer; d) Samsung Galaxy S9 smartphone. Validity and agreement determined was determined with the use of Bland-Altman plot and Spearman’s correlation.ResultsValidity was higher for the field test compared to the 4 km/h treadmill test for all tested devices. The smartphone was the most accurate in terms of error, validity and agreement for both the treadmill and field test. All devices performed poorly for the 2 km/h treadmill test and only the smartphone performed well at 3 km/h.SignificanceThe results of this study show that step counting validity and error obtained during treadmill walking is not similar to a field test. Future validation studies of activity trackers should consider this when designing a protocol. The smartphone had the lowest mean bias during the field test. |
| |
| Keywords: | Activity tracker Treadmill Step count Validation |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
