Purpose: To compare raw acceleration output of the ActiGraph？ GT3X+ and GENEA activity monitors. Methods: A GT3X+ and GENEA were oscillated in an orbital shaker at frequencies ranging from 0.7 to 4.0 Hz (ten 2-min trials/frequency) on a fixed radius of 5.08 cm. Additionally, 10 participants (age = 23.8 ± 5.4 years) wore the GT3X+ and GENEA on the dominant wrist and performed treadmill walking (2.0 and 3.5 mph) and running (5.5 and 7.5 mph) and simulated free-living activities (computer work, cleaning a room, vacuuming and throwing a ball) for 2-min each. A linear mixed model was used to compare the mean triaxial vector magnitude (VM) from the GT3X+ and GENEA at each oscillation frequency. For the human testing protocol, random forest machine-learning technique was used to develop two models using frequency domain (FD) and time domain (TD) features for each monitor. We compared activity type recognition accuracy between the GT3X+ and GENEA when the prediction model was fit using one monitor and then applied to the other. Z-statistics were used to compare the proportion of accurate predictions from the GT3X+ and GENEA for each model. Results: GENEA produced significantly higher (p < 0.05, 3.5 to 6.2%) mean VM than GT3X+ at all frequencies during shaker testing. Training the model using TD input features on the GENEA and applied to GT3X+ data yielded significantly lower (p < 0.05) prediction accuracy. Prediction accuracy was not compromised when interchangeably using FD models between monitors. Conclusions: It may be inappropriate to apply a model developed on the GENEA to predict activity type using GT3X+ data when input features are TD attributes of raw acceleration.
References
[1]
Freedson, P.; Bowles, H.R.; Troiano, R.; Haskell, W. Assessment of physical activity using wearable monitors: recommendations for monitor calibration and use in the field. Med. Sci. Sport Exerc. 2012, 44, 1–4.
[2]
Staudenmayer, J.; Pober, D.; Crouter, S.; Bassett, D.; Freedson, P. An artificial neural network to estimate physical activity energy expenditure and identify physical activity type from an accelerometer. J. appl. Physiol. 2009, 107, 1300–1307.
[3]
Zhang, S.; Rowlands, A.V.; Murray, P.; Hurst, T.L. Physical activity classification using the GENEA wrist-worn accelerometer. Med. Sci. Sport Exerc. 2012, 44, 742–748.
John, D.; Freedson, P. ActiGraph and Actical physical activity monitors: A peek under the hood. Med. Sci. Sport Exerc. 2012, 44, 86–89.
[6]
National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey: Physical Activity Monitor (PAM) Procedures Manual. Available online: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhanes/nhanes_11_12/Physical_Activity_Monitor_Manual.pdf (accessed on 20 July 2013).
[7]
Esliger, D.W.; Rowlands, A.V.; Hurst, T.L.; Catt, M.; Murray, P.; Eston, R.G. Validation of the GENEA Accelerometer. Med. Sci. Sport Exerc. 2011, 43, 1085–1093.
[8]
Santos-Lozano, A.; Marin, P.J.; Torres-Luque, G.; Ruiz, J.R.; Lucia, A.; Garatachea, N. Technical variability of the GT3X accelerometer. Med. Eng. Phys. 2012, 34, 787–790.
[9]
Orendurff, M.S.; Segal, A.D.; Klute, G.K.; Berge, J.S.; Rohr, E.S.; Kadel, N.J. The effect of walking speed on center of mass displacement. J. Rehabil. Res. Dev. 2004, 41, 829–834.
[10]
Rothney, M.P.; Apker, G.A.; Song, Y.; Chen, K.Y. Comparing the performance of three generations of ActiGraph accelerometers. J. Appl. Physiol. 2008, 105, 1091–1097.
[11]
John, D.; Miller, R.; Kozey-Keadle, S.; Caldwell, G.C.; Freedson, P.S. Biomechanical examination of the ‘plateau phenomenon’ in ActiGraph vertical activity counts. Physiol. Meas. 2012, 33, 219–230.
[12]
John, D.; Staudenmayer, J.; Freedson, P. Simple to complex modeling of breathing volume using a motion sensor. Sci. Total Environ. 2013, 454–455, 184–188.
[13]
Miller, J. Accelerometer Technologies, Specifications and Limitations. Proceedings of Internationational Conference on Ambulatory Monitoring and Physical Activity Measurement, Amherst, MA, USA, 17–19 June 2013.
