TY - JOUR
T1 - Step-count outcomes of 13 different activity trackers
T2 - Results from laboratory and free-living experiments
AU - Nakagata, Takashi
AU - Murakami, Haruka
AU - Kawakami, Ryoko
AU - Tripette, Julien
AU - Nakae, Satoshi
AU - Yamada, Yosuke
AU - Ishikawa-Takata, Kazuko
AU - Tanaka, Shigeho
AU - Miyachi, Motohiko
N1 - Funding Information:
We thank all of the participants who so generously gave their time and effort for this work. This research was supported by the Practical Research Project for Lifestyle-related Diseases including Cardiovascular Diseases and Diabetes Mellitus from the Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development (AMED) (no. 16ek0210031h0003 to Motohiko Miyachi). AMED had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
Funding Information:
Shigeho Tanaka reported receiving research funding from Omron Health Care Inc. No other disclosures were reported.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 The Authors
PY - 2022/10
Y1 - 2022/10
N2 - Background: Many activity trackers have been developed, but steps can still be inconsistent from one monitor to another. Research question: What are the differences and associations between the steps of 13 selected consumer-based and research-grade wearable devices during 1 standardized day in a metabolic chamber and 15-day free-living trials? Methods: In total, 19 healthy adults between 21 and 50 years-old participated in this study. Participants were equipped with 12 accelerometer-based active trackers and one pedometer (Yamasa) in order to monitor the number of steps per day. The devices were worn on the waist (ActiGraph, Omron, Actimarker, Lifedorder, Withings, and Yamasa) or non-dominant wrist (Fitbit, Garmin, Misfit, EPSON, and Jawbone), or placed in a pocket (Omron CaloriScan, and TANITA). Participants performed structured activities over a 24 h period in a chamber (Standardized day), and steps were monitored in the same participants in free-living trials for 15 successive days using the same monitors (free-living days). Results: When the 13 monitors were ranked by their steps, waist-worn ActiGraph was located at the center (7th) of the monitors both in the Standardized (12,252 ± 598 steps/day, mean ± SD) and free-living days (9295 ± 4027 steps/day). The correlation between the accelerometer-based devices was very high (r = 0.87–0.99). However, the steps of Yamasa was significantly lower in both trials than ActiGraph. The wrist-worn accelerometers had significantly higher steps than other devices both trials (P < 0.05). The differences between ActiGraph and Actimarker or Lifecorder was less than 100 steps/day in the Standardized day, and the differences between ActiGraph and Active Style Pro was less than 100 steps/day in the free-living days. Regression equation was also performed for inter-device compatibility. Significance: Step obtained from the wrist-worn, waist-worn, and pocket-type activity trackers were significantly different from each other but still highly correlated in free-living conditions.
AB - Background: Many activity trackers have been developed, but steps can still be inconsistent from one monitor to another. Research question: What are the differences and associations between the steps of 13 selected consumer-based and research-grade wearable devices during 1 standardized day in a metabolic chamber and 15-day free-living trials? Methods: In total, 19 healthy adults between 21 and 50 years-old participated in this study. Participants were equipped with 12 accelerometer-based active trackers and one pedometer (Yamasa) in order to monitor the number of steps per day. The devices were worn on the waist (ActiGraph, Omron, Actimarker, Lifedorder, Withings, and Yamasa) or non-dominant wrist (Fitbit, Garmin, Misfit, EPSON, and Jawbone), or placed in a pocket (Omron CaloriScan, and TANITA). Participants performed structured activities over a 24 h period in a chamber (Standardized day), and steps were monitored in the same participants in free-living trials for 15 successive days using the same monitors (free-living days). Results: When the 13 monitors were ranked by their steps, waist-worn ActiGraph was located at the center (7th) of the monitors both in the Standardized (12,252 ± 598 steps/day, mean ± SD) and free-living days (9295 ± 4027 steps/day). The correlation between the accelerometer-based devices was very high (r = 0.87–0.99). However, the steps of Yamasa was significantly lower in both trials than ActiGraph. The wrist-worn accelerometers had significantly higher steps than other devices both trials (P < 0.05). The differences between ActiGraph and Actimarker or Lifecorder was less than 100 steps/day in the Standardized day, and the differences between ActiGraph and Active Style Pro was less than 100 steps/day in the free-living days. Regression equation was also performed for inter-device compatibility. Significance: Step obtained from the wrist-worn, waist-worn, and pocket-type activity trackers were significantly different from each other but still highly correlated in free-living conditions.
KW - Accelerometer
KW - Pedometer
KW - Physical activity
KW - Steps
KW - Validity
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85136539792&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85136539792&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2022.08.004
DO - 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2022.08.004
M3 - Article
C2 - 36030707
AN - SCOPUS:85136539792
SN - 0966-6362
VL - 98
SP - 24
EP - 33
JO - Gait and Posture
JF - Gait and Posture
ER -