How valid are wearable physical activity trackers for measuring steps?

Wearable activity trackers have become popular for tracking individual's daily physical activity, but little information is available to substantiate the validity of these devices in step counts. Thirty-five healthy individuals completed three conditions of activity tracker measurement: walking/jogging on a treadmill, walking over-ground on an indoor track, and a 24-hour free-living condition. Participants wore 10 activity trackers at the same time for both treadmill and over-ground protocol. Of these 10 activity trackers three were randomly given for 24-hour free-living condition. Correlations of steps measured to steps observed were r = 0.84 and r = 0.67 on a treadmill and over-ground protocol, respectively. The mean MAPE (mean absolute percentage error) score for all devices and speeds on a treadmill was 8.2% against manually counted steps. The MAPE value was higher for over-ground walking (9.9%) and even higher for the 24-hour free-living period (18.48%) on step counts. Equivalence testing for step count measurement resulted in a significant level within ±5% for the Fitbit Zip, Withings Pulse, and Jawbone UP24 and within ±10% for the Basis B1 band, Garmin VivoFit, and SenseWear Armband Mini. The results show that the Fitbit Zip and Withings Pulse provided the most accurate measures of step count under all three different conditions (i.e. treadmill, over-ground, and 24-hour condition), and considerable variability in accuracy across monitors and also by speeds and conditions.

Accuracy of inclinometer functions of the activPAL and ActiGraph GT3X+: A focus on physical activity.

PURPOSE: The purpose of the study was to examine the accuracy of inclinometer functions of the ActiGraph GT3X+ (AG) (worn on the waist and wrist) and the activPAL (AP) in assessing time spent sitting, standing, and stepping. METHODS: A total of 62 adults (age: 18-40 yrs; male:37; female:25) wore three activity monitors (AG waist, and AG wrist, and AP) while completing 15 different types of activities. The 15 activities were classified into 3 different postures (sitting, standing, and stepping) based on the directly observed behaviors. Minutes estimated from the inclinometers of the three monitors were directly compared to those from direct observation (criterion method) using mean absolute percent error (MAPE) values, effect sizes (Cohen's D), and equivalence testing. RESULTS: The AP was more accurate than the both waist- and wrist-worn AG in both sitting and standing activities, but the AG was more accurate than the AP in stepping activity when the stepping activity was determined with 0.7 step/s threshold. Equivalence testing indicated that the time measured by the waist-, wrist-worn AG, and AP showed significant equivalence to the time in the equivalence zone (90% confidence interval: 2.7 to 3.3min) for 6, 5, and 7 activities, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The AP was reasonably accurate for detecting sitting, standing, and stepping, and the AG was very accurate for classifying stepping when the stepping activity was determined by the formula created by 0.7 step/s threshold. It is expected that the result of the study would contribute to performing movement pattern analyses and health promotion research for classifying activities.

Concurrent Validity of Wearable Activity Trackers Under Free-Living Conditions.

Brooke, SM, An, H-S, Kang, S-K, Noble, JM, Berg, KE, and Lee, J-M. Concurrent validity of wearable activity trackers under free-living conditions. J Strength Cond Res 31(4): 1097-1106, 2017-The purpose of this study is to evaluate the concurrent validity of wearable activity trackers in energy expenditure (EE) and sleep period time (SPT) under free-living conditions. Ninety-five (28.5 ± 9.8 years) healthy men (n = 34) and women (n = 61) participated in this study. The total EE and SPT were measured using 8 monitors: Nike+ FuelBand SE (NFB), Garmin VivoFit (VF), Misfit Shine (MF), Fitbit Flex (FF), Jawbone UP (JU), Polar Loop (PL), Fitbit Charge HR (FC), and SenseWear Armband Mini (SWA) (criterion measures: SWA for EE and a sleep log for SPT). The mean absolute percent error (MAPE) for EE was 13.0, 15.2, 15.5, 16.1, 16.2, 22.8, and 24.5% for PL, MF, FF, NFB, FC, JU, and VF, respectively. Mean absolute percent errors were calculated for SPT to be 4.0, 8.8, 10.2, 11.5, 12.9, 13.6, 17.5, and 21.61% for VF, FF, JU, FC, MF, SWA laying down, PL, and SWA, respectively. Concurrent validity was examined using equivalence testing on EE (equivalence zone: 2,889.7-3,531.9 kcal); 2 trackers fell short of falling in the zone: PL (2,714.4-3,164.8 kcal) and FC (2,473.8-3,066.5 kcal). For SPT (equivalence zone: 420.6-514.0 minutes), several monitors fell in the zone: PL (448.3-485.6 minutes), MS (442.8-492.2 minutes), and FF (427.7-486.7 minutes). This study suggests that the PL and FC provide a reasonable estimate of EE under free-living conditions. The PL, FC, and MF were the most valid monitors used for measuring SPT.

How accurate are the wrist-based heart rate monitors during walking and running activities? Are they accurate enough?

BACKGROUND: Heart rate (HR) monitors are valuable devices for fitness-orientated individuals. There has been a vast influx of optical sensing blood flow monitors claiming to provide accurate HR during physical activities. These monitors are worn on the arm and wrist to detect HR with photoplethysmography (PPG) techniques. Little is known about the validity of these wearable activity trackers. AIM: Validate the Scosche Rhythm (SR), Mio Alpha (MA), Fitbit Charge HR (FH), Basis Peak (BP), Microsoft Band (MB), and TomTom Runner Cardio (TT) wireless HR monitors. METHODS: 50 volunteers (males: n=32, age 19-43 years; females: n=18, age 19-38 years) participated. All monitors were worn simultaneously in a randomised configuration. The Polar RS400 HR chest strap was the criterion measure. A treadmill protocol of one 30 min bout of continuous walking and running at 3.2, 4.8, 6.4, 8.0, and 9.6 km/h (5 min at each protocol speed) with HR manually recorded every minute was completed. RESULTS: For group comparisons, the mean absolute percentage error values were: 3.3%, 3.6%, 4.0%, 4.6%, 4.8% and 6.2% for TT, BP, RH, MA, MB and FH, respectively. Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient (r) was observed: r=0.959 (TT), r=0.956 (MB), r=0.954 (BP), r=0.933 (FH), r=0.930 (RH) and r=0.929 (MA). Results from 95% equivalency testing showed monitors were found to be equivalent to those of the criterion HR (±10% equivalence zone: 98.15-119.96). CONCLUSIONS: The results demonstrate that the wearable activity trackers provide an accurate measurement of HR during walking and running activities.