The Validity of the ActiPed for Physical Activity Monitoring

Abstract

The ActiPed (FitLinxx) is a uniaxial accelerometer, which objectively measures physical activity, uploads the data wirelessly to a website, allowing participants and researchers to view activity levels remotely. The aim was to validate ActiPed’s step count, distance travelled and activity time against direct observation. Further, to compare against pedometer (YAMAX), accelerometer (ActiGraph) and manufacturer’s guidelines. 22 participants, aged 28±7 years, undertook 4 protocols, including walking on different surfaces and incremental running protocol (from 2 mph to 8 mph). Bland-Altman plots allowed comparison of direct observation against ActiPed estimates. For step count, the ActiPed showed a low % bias in all protocols: walking on a treadmill ( − 1.30%), incremental treadmill protocol ( − 1.98%), walking over grass ( − 1.67%), and walking over concrete ( − 0.93%). When differentiating between walking and running step count the ActiPed showed a % bias of 4.10% and  − 6.30%, respectively. The ActiPed showed >95% accuracy for distance and duration estimations overall, although underestimated distance (p<0.01) for walking over grass and concrete. Overall, the ActiPed showed acceptable levels of accuracy comparable to previous validated pedometers and accelerometers. The accuracy combined with the simple and informative remote gathering of data, suggests that the ActiPed could be a useful tool in objective physical activity monitoring.

Key words

accelerometer - motion sensor - accuracy - steps

• References

• 1 Abel MG, Hannon JC, Sell K, Lillie T, Conlin G, Anderson D. Validation of the Kenz Lifecorder EX and ActiGraph GT1M accelerometers for walking and running in adults. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab 2008; 33: 1155-1164
• 2 American College of Sports Medicine . ACSM’s Guidelines for Exercise Testing and Prescription. 8^th Edition. Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2009: 53-54
• 3 Bassett Jr DR, Rowlands A, Trost SG. Calibration and validation of wearable monitors. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2012; 44: S32-S38
• 4 Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986; 1: 307-310
• 5 Borg G. Perceived exertion as an indicator of somatic stress. Scand J Rehabil Med 1970; 2: 92-98
• 6 Butte NF, Ekelund U, Westerterp KR. Assessing physical activity using wearable monitors: measures of physical activity. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2012; 44: S5-S12
• 7 Chen KY, Bassett Jr DR. The technology of accelerometry-based activity monitors: current and future. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2005; 37: S490-S500
• 8 Conger SA, Strath SJ, Bassett Jr DR. Validity and reliability of the FitSense FS-1 Speedometer during walking and running. Int J Sports Med 2005; 26: 208-213
• 9 Crouter SE, Schneider PL, Karabulut M, Bassett Jr DR. Validity of 10 electronic pedometers for measuring steps, distance, and energy cost. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2003; 35: 1455-1460
• 10 Department of Health, Physical Activity, Health Improvement and Protection , Start active, stay active: A report on physical activity from the four home countries’ chief medical officers. In: Health UDo. (ed.) Crown; 2011: 38-44
• 11 Finley FR, Cody KA. Locomotive characteristics of urban pedestrians. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1970; 51: 423-426
• 12 Freedson P, Bowles HR, Troiano R, Haskell W. Assessment of physical activity using wearable monitors: recommendations for monitor calibration and use in the field. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2012; 44: S1-S4
• 13 Freedson PS, Miller K. Objective monitoring of physical activity using motion sensors and heart rate. Res Q Exerc Sport 2000; 71: S21-S29
• 14 Harriss DJ, Atkinson G. Update – ethical standards in sport and exercise science research. Int J Sports Med 2011; 32: 192-195
• 15 Hoyt RW, Knapik JJ, Lanza JF, Jones BH, Staab JS. Ambulatory foot contact monitor to estimate metabolic cost of human locomotion. J Appl Physiol 1994; 76: 1818-1822
• 16 Intille SS, Lester J, Sallis JF, Duncan G. New horizons in sensor development. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2012; 44: S24-S31
• 17 Kane NA, Simmons MC, John D, Thompson DL, Bassett DR. Validity of the Nike+ device during walking and running. Int J Sports Med 2009; 31: 101-105
• 18 Matthews CE, Hagströmer M, Pober DM, Bowles HR. Best practices for using physical activity monitors in population-based research. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2012; 44: S68-S76
• 19 Moy ML, Garshick E, Matthess KR, Lew R, Reilly JJ. Accuracy of uniaxial accelerometer in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. J Rehabil Res Dev 2008; 45: 611-617
• 20 Oberg T, Karsznia A, Oberg K. Basic gait parameters: reference data for normal subjects, 10–79 years of age. J Rehabil Res Dev 1993; 30: 210-223
• 21 Schneider PL, Crouter SE, Bassett DR. Pedometer measures of free-living physical activity: comparison of 13 models. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2004; 36: 331-335
• 22 Schneider PL, Crouter SE, Lukajic O, Bassett Jr DR. Accuracy and reliability of 10 pedometers for measuring steps over a 400-m walk. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2003; 35: 1779-1784
• 23 Trost SG, McIver KL, Pate RR. Conducting accelerometer-based activity assessments in field-based research. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2005; 37: S531-S543
• 24 Tudor-Locke C, Williams JE, Reis JP, Pluto D. Utility of pedometers for assessing physical activity: convergent validity. Sports Med 2002; 32: 795-808
• 25 Warren JM, Ekelund U, Besson H, Mezzani A, Geladas N, Vanhees L, Experts P. Assessment of physical activity – a review of methodologies with reference to epidemiological research: a report of the exercise physiology section of the European Association of Cardiovascular Prevention and Rehabilitation. Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil 2010; 17: 127-139
• 26 Waters RL, Lunsford BR, Perry J, Byrd R. Energy-speed relationship of walking: standard tables. J Orthop Res 1988; 6: 215-222
• 27 Westerterp KR. Assessment of physical activity: a critical appraisal. Eur J Appl Physiol 2009; 105: 823-828