When a step is not a step! specificity analysis of five physical activity monitors
O’Connell, Sandra ÓLaighin, Gearóid Quinlan, Leo R.
O’Connell, Sandra
ÓLaighin, Gearóid
Quinlan, Leo R.
Publication Date
2017-01-13
Keywords
Type
Article
Downloads
Citation
O’Connell, Sandra; ÓLaighin, Gearóid; Quinlan, Leo R. (2017). When a step is not a step! specificity analysis of five physical activity monitors. PLOS ONE 12 (1),
Abstract
Introduction Physical activity is an essential aspect of a healthy lifestyle for both physical and mental health states. As step count is one of the most utilized measures for quantifying physical activity it is important that activity-monitoring devices be both sensitive and specific in recording actual steps taken and disregard non-stepping body movements. The objective of this study was to assess the specificity of five activity monitors during a variety of prescribed non-stepping activities. Methods Participants wore five activity monitors simultaneously for a variety of prescribed activities including deskwork, taking an elevator, taking a bus journey, automobile driving, washing and drying dishes; functional reaching task; indoor cycling; outdoor cycling; and indoor rowing. Each task was carried out for either a specific duration of time or over a specific distance. Activity monitors tested were the ActivPAL micro (TM), NL-2000 (TM) pedometer, Withings Smart Activity Monitor Tracker (Pulse O-2)(TM), Fitbit One (TM) and Jawbone UP (TM). Participants were video-recorded while carrying out the prescribed activities and the false positive step count registered on each activity monitor was obtained and compared to the video. Results All activity monitors registered a significant number of false positive steps per minute during one or more of the prescribed activities. The Withings (TM) activity performed best, registering a significant number of false positive steps per minute during the outdoor cycling activity only (P = 0.025). The Jawbone (TM) registered a significant number of false positive steps during the functional reaching task and while washing and drying dishes, which involved arm and hand movement (P < 0.01 for both). The ActivPAL (TM) registered a significant number of false positive steps during the cycling exercises (P < 0.001 for both). Conclusion As a number of false positive steps were registered on the activity monitors during the non-stepping activities, the authors conclude that non-stepping physical activities can result in the false detection of steps. This can negatively affect the quantification of physical activity with regard to step count as an output. The Withings (TM) activity monitor performed best with regard to specificity during the activities of daily living tested.
Funder
Publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Publisher DOI
Rights
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Ireland