» Articles » PMID: 33322833

Validity of Consumer Activity Monitors and an Algorithm Using Smartphone Data for Measuring Steps During Different Activity Types

Overview
Publisher MDPI
Date 2020 Dec 16
PMID 33322833
Citations 11
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

: Consumer activity monitors and smartphones have gained relevance for the assessment and promotion of physical activity. The aim of this study was to determine the concurrent validity of various consumer activity monitor models and smartphone models for measuring steps. : Participants completed three activity protocols: (1) overground walking with three different speeds (comfortable, slow, fast), (2) activities of daily living (ADLs) focusing on arm movements, and (3) intermittent walking. Participants wore 11 activity monitors (wrist: 8; hip: 2; ankle: 1) and four smartphones (hip: 3; calf: 1). Observed steps served as the criterion measure. The mean average percentage error (MAPE) was calculated for each device and protocol. : Eighteen healthy adults participated in the study (age: 28.8 ± 4.9 years). MAPEs ranged from 0.3-38.2% during overground walking, 48.2-861.2% during ADLs, and 11.2-47.3% during intermittent walking. Wrist-worn activity monitors tended to misclassify arm movements as steps. Smartphone data collected at the hip, analyzed with a separate algorithm, performed either equally or even superiorly to the research-grade ActiGraph. : This study highlights the potential of smartphones for physical activity measurement. Measurement inaccuracies during intermittent walking and arm movements should be considered when interpreting study results and choosing activity monitors for evaluation purposes.

Citing Articles

Smartphone-based gait analysis in the assessment of fatigue and fatigability in people with multiple sclerosis: a supervised cohort study.

Schonherr C, Ziegler J, Zentek T, Rashid A, Strauss S, Tallner A J Neurol. 2025; 272(3):217.

PMID: 39985679 PMC: 11846754. DOI: 10.1007/s00415-025-12906-7.


Accuracy of wrist-worn activity trackers for measuring steps in patients after major abdominal surgery: A validation study.

Li Z, Feng W, Zhou L, Gong S Digit Health. 2024; 10:20552076241297036.

PMID: 39502479 PMC: 11536558. DOI: 10.1177/20552076241297036.


Predicting sleep based on physical activity, light exposure, and Heart rate variability data using wearable devices.

Park K, Lee S, Lee C, Hwang H, Yoon D, Choi E Ann Med. 2024; 56(1):2405077.

PMID: 39297306 PMC: 11413959. DOI: 10.1080/07853890.2024.2405077.


Apple Watch 6 vs. Galaxy Watch 4: A Validity Study of Step-Count Estimation in Daily Activities.

Hong K, Hwang I, Kim H, Yang S, Lee J Sensors (Basel). 2024; 24(14).

PMID: 39066055 PMC: 11281039. DOI: 10.3390/s24144658.


Criterion-Related Validity of Consumer-Wearable Activity Trackers for Estimating Steps in Primary Schoolchildren under Controlled Conditions: Fit-Person Study.

Mayorga-Vega D, Casado-Robles C, Guijarro-Romero S, Viciana J J Sports Sci Med. 2024; 23(1):79-96.

PMID: 38455433 PMC: 10915616. DOI: 10.52082/jssm.2024.79.


References
1.
Beltran-Carrillo V, Jimenez-Loaisa A, Alarcon-Lopez M, Elvira J . Validity of the "Samsung Health" application to measure steps: A study with two different samsung smartphones. J Sports Sci. 2018; 37(7):788-794. DOI: 10.1080/02640414.2018.1527199. View

2.
Feehan L, Geldman J, Sayre E, Park C, Ezzat A, Yoo J . Accuracy of Fitbit Devices: Systematic Review and Narrative Syntheses of Quantitative Data. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2018; 6(8):e10527. PMC: 6107736. DOI: 10.2196/10527. View

3.
Alinia P, Cain C, Fallahzadeh R, Shahrokni A, Cook D, Ghasemzadeh H . How Accurate Is Your Activity Tracker? A Comparative Study of Step Counts in Low-Intensity Physical Activities. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2017; 5(8):e106. PMC: 5572056. DOI: 10.2196/mhealth.6321. View

4.
Presset B, Laurenczy B, Malatesta D, Barral J . Accuracy of a smartphone pedometer application according to different speeds and mobile phone locations in a laboratory context. J Exerc Sci Fit. 2019; 16(2):43-48. PMC: 6323165. DOI: 10.1016/j.jesf.2018.05.001. View

5.
Bunn J, Navalta J, Fountaine C, Reece J . Current State of Commercial Wearable Technology in Physical Activity Monitoring 2015-2017. Int J Exerc Sci. 2018; 11(7):503-515. PMC: 5841672. DOI: 10.70252/NJQX2719. View