Open AccessPhysical activity monitoring devices: energy expenditure comparison in a setting of free-living activities
Author(s) -
Matteo Vandoni,
Vittoria Carnevale Pellino,
Stefano Dell’Anna,
Elena Ricagno,
Giulia Liberali,
Claudia Bonfanti,
Luca Correale
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
international journal of physical education, fitness and sports
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
eISSN - 2457-0753
pISSN - 2277-5447
DOI - 10.26524/ijpefs1945
Subject(s) - energy expenditure , treadmill , physical activity , physical therapy , wearable computer , activity monitor , pearson product moment correlation coefficient , computer science , physical medicine and rehabilitation , medicine , statistics , mathematics , embedded system , endocrinology
The aim of this study was to evaluate the validity of Energy Expenditure (EE) estimation provided by 3 wearable devices [Fitbit-One (FO), Sensewear Armband (AR) and Actiheart (AC)] in a setting of free-living activities. 43 participants (24 females; 23.4±.4,5yrs) performed 9 activities: sedentary (watching video, reading), walking (on treadmill and outdoor), running (on treadmill and outdoor) and moderate-to-vigorous activities (Wii gaming, taking the stairs and playing football). Mean Absolute Percentage Error (MAPE) and Pearson’s correlation were calculated to assess the validity of each instrument in comparison to a portable metabolic analyser (PMA). In overall comparison MAPE’s were 7,7% for AR (r=.86; p<.0001), 8,6% for FO (r=.69; P<.001), and 11.6% for AC (r=.81; p<.0001). These findings support the accuracy of the wearables. The AR was the most accurate in the whole protocol. However, MAPE results suggest that devices algorithms should be improved for better measure of EE during moderate-to-vigorous activities.