Influence of accelerometer type and placement on physical activity energy expenditure prediction in manual wheelchair users

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

16 Citations (Scopus)
68 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Purpose:To assess the validity of two accelerometer devices, at two different anatomical locations, for the prediction of physical activity energy expenditure (PAEE) in manual wheelchair users (MWUs).MethodsSeventeen MWUs (36 ± 10 yrs, 72 ± 11 kg) completed ten activities; resting, folding clothes, propulsion on a 1% gradient (3,4,5,6 and 7 km·hr-1) and propulsion at 4km·hr-1 (with an additional 8% body mass, 2% and 3% gradient) on a motorised wheelchair treadmill. GT3X+ and GENEActiv accelerometers were worn on the right wrist (W) and upper arm (UA). Linear regression analysis was conducted between outputs from each accelerometer and criterion PAEE, measured using indirect calorimetry. Subsequent error statistics were calculated for the derived regression equations for all four device/location combinations, using a leave-one-out cross-validation analysis.ResultsAccelerometer outputs at each anatomical location were significantly (p < .01) associated with PAEE (GT3X+-UA; r = 0.68 and GT3X+-W; r = 0.82. GENEActiv-UA; r = 0.87 and GENEActiv-W; r = 0.88). Mean ± SD PAEE estimation errors for all activities combined were 15 ± 45%, 14 ± 50%, 3 ± 25% and 4 ± 26% for GT3X+-UA, GT3X+-W, GENEActiv-UA and GENEActiv-W, respectively. Absolute PAEE estimation errors for devices varied, 19 to 66% for GT3X+-UA, 17 to 122% for GT3X+-W, 15 to 26% for GENEActiv-UA and from 17.0 to 32% for the GENEActiv-W.ConclusionThe results indicate that the GENEActiv device worn on either the upper arm or wrist provides the most valid prediction of PAEE in MWUs. Variation in error statistics between the two devices is a result of inherent differences in internal components, on-board filtering processes and outputs of each device.
Original languageEnglish
Article numbere0126086
Pages (from-to)1 - 15
Number of pages15
JournalPLoS ONE
Volume10
Issue number5
Early online date8 May 2015
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - May 2015

Fingerprint

Wheelchairs
Accelerometers
energy expenditure
physical activity
Energy Metabolism
Arm
prediction
Error statistics
Equipment and Supplies
Error analysis
Propulsion
statistics
Wrist
Exercise equipment
exercise equipment
calorimetry
Calorimetry
clothing
Linear regression
Regression analysis

Keywords

  • accelerometer
  • linear regression analysis
  • Physical Activity

Cite this

Influence of accelerometer type and placement on physical activity energy expenditure prediction in manual wheelchair users. / Nightingale, Tom Edward; Walhin, Jean-Philippe; Thompson, Dylan; Bilzon, James Lee John.

In: PLoS ONE, Vol. 10, No. 5, e0126086, 05.2015, p. 1 - 15.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{e77e41134d394085af2323beef320402,
title = "Influence of accelerometer type and placement on physical activity energy expenditure prediction in manual wheelchair users",
abstract = "Purpose:To assess the validity of two accelerometer devices, at two different anatomical locations, for the prediction of physical activity energy expenditure (PAEE) in manual wheelchair users (MWUs).MethodsSeventeen MWUs (36 ± 10 yrs, 72 ± 11 kg) completed ten activities; resting, folding clothes, propulsion on a 1{\%} gradient (3,4,5,6 and 7 km·hr-1) and propulsion at 4km·hr-1 (with an additional 8{\%} body mass, 2{\%} and 3{\%} gradient) on a motorised wheelchair treadmill. GT3X+ and GENEActiv accelerometers were worn on the right wrist (W) and upper arm (UA). Linear regression analysis was conducted between outputs from each accelerometer and criterion PAEE, measured using indirect calorimetry. Subsequent error statistics were calculated for the derived regression equations for all four device/location combinations, using a leave-one-out cross-validation analysis.ResultsAccelerometer outputs at each anatomical location were significantly (p < .01) associated with PAEE (GT3X+-UA; r = 0.68 and GT3X+-W; r = 0.82. GENEActiv-UA; r = 0.87 and GENEActiv-W; r = 0.88). Mean ± SD PAEE estimation errors for all activities combined were 15 ± 45{\%}, 14 ± 50{\%}, 3 ± 25{\%} and 4 ± 26{\%} for GT3X+-UA, GT3X+-W, GENEActiv-UA and GENEActiv-W, respectively. Absolute PAEE estimation errors for devices varied, 19 to 66{\%} for GT3X+-UA, 17 to 122{\%} for GT3X+-W, 15 to 26{\%} for GENEActiv-UA and from 17.0 to 32{\%} for the GENEActiv-W.ConclusionThe results indicate that the GENEActiv device worn on either the upper arm or wrist provides the most valid prediction of PAEE in MWUs. Variation in error statistics between the two devices is a result of inherent differences in internal components, on-board filtering processes and outputs of each device.",
keywords = "accelerometer, linear regression analysis, Physical Activity",
author = "Nightingale, {Tom Edward} and Jean-Philippe Walhin and Dylan Thompson and Bilzon, {James Lee John}",
year = "2015",
month = "5",
doi = "10.1371/journal.pone.0126086",
language = "English",
volume = "10",
pages = "1 -- 15",
journal = "PLoS ONE",
issn = "1932-6203",
publisher = "Public Library of Science (PLOS)",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Influence of accelerometer type and placement on physical activity energy expenditure prediction in manual wheelchair users

AU - Nightingale, Tom Edward

AU - Walhin, Jean-Philippe

AU - Thompson, Dylan

AU - Bilzon, James Lee John

PY - 2015/5

Y1 - 2015/5

N2 - Purpose:To assess the validity of two accelerometer devices, at two different anatomical locations, for the prediction of physical activity energy expenditure (PAEE) in manual wheelchair users (MWUs).MethodsSeventeen MWUs (36 ± 10 yrs, 72 ± 11 kg) completed ten activities; resting, folding clothes, propulsion on a 1% gradient (3,4,5,6 and 7 km·hr-1) and propulsion at 4km·hr-1 (with an additional 8% body mass, 2% and 3% gradient) on a motorised wheelchair treadmill. GT3X+ and GENEActiv accelerometers were worn on the right wrist (W) and upper arm (UA). Linear regression analysis was conducted between outputs from each accelerometer and criterion PAEE, measured using indirect calorimetry. Subsequent error statistics were calculated for the derived regression equations for all four device/location combinations, using a leave-one-out cross-validation analysis.ResultsAccelerometer outputs at each anatomical location were significantly (p < .01) associated with PAEE (GT3X+-UA; r = 0.68 and GT3X+-W; r = 0.82. GENEActiv-UA; r = 0.87 and GENEActiv-W; r = 0.88). Mean ± SD PAEE estimation errors for all activities combined were 15 ± 45%, 14 ± 50%, 3 ± 25% and 4 ± 26% for GT3X+-UA, GT3X+-W, GENEActiv-UA and GENEActiv-W, respectively. Absolute PAEE estimation errors for devices varied, 19 to 66% for GT3X+-UA, 17 to 122% for GT3X+-W, 15 to 26% for GENEActiv-UA and from 17.0 to 32% for the GENEActiv-W.ConclusionThe results indicate that the GENEActiv device worn on either the upper arm or wrist provides the most valid prediction of PAEE in MWUs. Variation in error statistics between the two devices is a result of inherent differences in internal components, on-board filtering processes and outputs of each device.

AB - Purpose:To assess the validity of two accelerometer devices, at two different anatomical locations, for the prediction of physical activity energy expenditure (PAEE) in manual wheelchair users (MWUs).MethodsSeventeen MWUs (36 ± 10 yrs, 72 ± 11 kg) completed ten activities; resting, folding clothes, propulsion on a 1% gradient (3,4,5,6 and 7 km·hr-1) and propulsion at 4km·hr-1 (with an additional 8% body mass, 2% and 3% gradient) on a motorised wheelchair treadmill. GT3X+ and GENEActiv accelerometers were worn on the right wrist (W) and upper arm (UA). Linear regression analysis was conducted between outputs from each accelerometer and criterion PAEE, measured using indirect calorimetry. Subsequent error statistics were calculated for the derived regression equations for all four device/location combinations, using a leave-one-out cross-validation analysis.ResultsAccelerometer outputs at each anatomical location were significantly (p < .01) associated with PAEE (GT3X+-UA; r = 0.68 and GT3X+-W; r = 0.82. GENEActiv-UA; r = 0.87 and GENEActiv-W; r = 0.88). Mean ± SD PAEE estimation errors for all activities combined were 15 ± 45%, 14 ± 50%, 3 ± 25% and 4 ± 26% for GT3X+-UA, GT3X+-W, GENEActiv-UA and GENEActiv-W, respectively. Absolute PAEE estimation errors for devices varied, 19 to 66% for GT3X+-UA, 17 to 122% for GT3X+-W, 15 to 26% for GENEActiv-UA and from 17.0 to 32% for the GENEActiv-W.ConclusionThe results indicate that the GENEActiv device worn on either the upper arm or wrist provides the most valid prediction of PAEE in MWUs. Variation in error statistics between the two devices is a result of inherent differences in internal components, on-board filtering processes and outputs of each device.

KW - accelerometer

KW - linear regression analysis

KW - Physical Activity

UR - http://http;//dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0126086

UR - http://http;//dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0126086

UR - http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0126086

U2 - 10.1371/journal.pone.0126086

DO - 10.1371/journal.pone.0126086

M3 - Article

VL - 10

SP - 1

EP - 15

JO - PLoS ONE

JF - PLoS ONE

SN - 1932-6203

IS - 5

M1 - e0126086

ER -