活动监视器
单调的工作
日常生活活动
运动(音乐)
辅助生活
体力活动
计算机科学
模拟
物理医学与康复
医学
物理疗法
老年学
物理
声学
作者
Amanda Hickey,Dinesh John,Jeffer Eidi Sasaki,Marianna G. Mavilia,Patty S. Freedson
出处
期刊:Journal of Physical Activity and Health
[Human Kinetics]
日期:2016-02-01
卷期号:13 (2): 145-153
被引量:65
标识
DOI:10.1123/jpah.2015-0203
摘要
There is a need to examine step-counting accuracy of activity monitors during different types of movements. The purpose of this study was to compare activity monitor and manually counted steps during treadmill and simulated free-living activities and to compare the activity monitor steps to the StepWatch (SW) in a natural setting.Fifteen participants performed laboratory-based treadmill (2.4, 4.8, 7.2 and 9.7 km/h) and simulated free-living activities (eg, cleaning room) while wearing an activPAL, Omron HJ720-ITC, Yamax Digi- Walker SW-200, 2 ActiGraph GT3Xs (1 in "low-frequency extension" [AGLFE] and 1 in "normal-frequency" mode), an ActiGraph 7164, and a SW. Participants also wore monitors for 1-day in their free-living environment. Linear mixed models identified differences between activity monitor steps and the criterion in the laboratory/free-living settings.Most monitors performed poorly during treadmill walking at 2.4 km/h. Cleaning a room had the largest errors of all simulated free-living activities. The accuracy was highest for forward/rhythmic movements for all monitors. In the free-living environment, the AGLFE had the largest discrepancy with the SW.This study highlights the need to verify step-counting accuracy of activity monitors with activities that include different movement types/directions. This is important to understand the origin of errors in step-counting during free-living conditions.
科研通智能强力驱动
Strongly Powered by AbleSci AI