» Articles » PMID: 34770539

Smart Watch Versus Classic Receivers: Static Validity of Three GPS Devices in Different Types of Built Environments

Overview
Journal Sensors (Basel)
Publisher MDPI
Specialty Biotechnology
Date 2021 Nov 13
PMID 34770539
Citations 2
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

In order to study the relationship between human physical activity and the design of the built environment, it is important to measure the location of human movement accurately. In this study, we compared an inexpensive GPS receiver (Holux RCV-3000) and a frequently used Garmin Forerunner 35 smart watch, with a device that has been validated and recommended for physical activity research (Qstarz BT-Q1000XT). These instruments were placed on six geodetic points, which represented a range of different environments (e.g., residential, open space, park). The coordinates recorded by each device were compared with the known coordinates of the geodetic points. There were no differences in accuracy among the three devices when averaged across the six sites. However, the Garmin was more accurate in the city center and the Holux was more accurate in the park and housing estate areas compared to the other devices. We consider the location accuracy of the Holux and the Garmin to be comparable to that of the Qstarz. Therefore, we consider these devices to be suitable instruments for locating physical activity. Researchers must also consider other differences among these devices (such as battery life) when determining if they are suitable for their research studies.

Citing Articles

Developing a Health Support System to Promote Care for the Elderly.

Szanto M, Denes-Fazakas L, Noboa E, Kovacs L, Borsos D, Eigner G Sensors (Basel). 2025; 25(2).

PMID: 39860825 PMC: 11769229. DOI: 10.3390/s25020455.


Investigating young children's physical activity through time and place.

Remmers T, Koolwijk P, Fassaert I, Nolles J, de Groot W, Vos S Int J Health Geogr. 2024; 23(1):12.

PMID: 38745292 PMC: 11092161. DOI: 10.1186/s12942-024-00373-8.


Wearable and Portable GPS Solutions for Monitoring Mobility in Dementia: A Systematic Review.

Cullen A, Mazhar M, Smith M, Lithander F, Breasail M, Henderson E Sensors (Basel). 2022; 22(9).

PMID: 35591026 PMC: 9104067. DOI: 10.3390/s22093336.

References
1.
Pobiruchin M, Suleder J, Zowalla R, Wiesner M . Accuracy and Adoption of Wearable Technology Used by Active Citizens: A Marathon Event Field Study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2017; 5(2):e24. PMC: 5350460. DOI: 10.2196/mhealth.6395. View

2.
Yi L, Wilson J, Mason T, Habre R, Wang S, Dunton G . Methodologies for assessing contextual exposure to the built environment in physical activity studies: A systematic review. Health Place. 2019; 60:102226. PMC: 7377908. DOI: 10.1016/j.healthplace.2019.102226. View

3.
Carlson J, Saelens B, Kerr J, Schipperijn J, Conway T, Frank L . Association between neighborhood walkability and GPS-measured walking, bicycling and vehicle time in adolescents. Health Place. 2015; 32:1-7. PMC: 5576349. DOI: 10.1016/j.healthplace.2014.12.008. View

4.
Jones A, Coombes E, Griffin S, van Sluijs E . Environmental supportiveness for physical activity in English schoolchildren: a study using Global Positioning Systems. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2009; 6:42. PMC: 2729291. DOI: 10.1186/1479-5868-6-42. View

5.
Troped P, Wilson J, Matthews C, Cromley E, Melly S . The built environment and location-based physical activity. Am J Prev Med. 2010; 38(4):429-38. PMC: 3568665. DOI: 10.1016/j.amepre.2009.12.032. View