Comparison of Four ActiGraph Accelerometers during Walking and Running

• Autores: Dinesh John, Brian M. Tyo, David R. Bassett
• Localización: Medicine & Science in Sports & exercise: Official Journal of the American College of Sports Medicine, ISSN 0195-9131, Vol. 42, Nº. 2, 2010, págs. 368-374
• Idioma: inglés
• Texto completo no disponible (Saber más ...)
• Resumen

  • Currently, researchers can use the ActiGraph 7164 or one of three different versions of the ActiGraph GT1M to objectively measure physical activity.

    Purpose: To determine whether differences exist between activity counts from the ActiGraph 7164 and the three versions of the GT1M at given walking and running speeds.

    Methods: Ten male participants (23.6 +/- 2.7 yr) completed treadmill walking and running at 10 different speeds (3-min stages) while wearing the ActiGraph 7164 and the latest GT1M (GT1M-V3) or the GT1M version one (GT1M-V1) and the GT1M version two (GT1M-V2). Participants walked at 3, 5, and 7 km[middle dot]h-1 followed by running at 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, and 20 km[middle dot]h-1. The accelerometers were worn on an elastic belt around the waist over the left and right sides of the hip. Testing was performed on different days using a counterbalanced within-subjects design to account for potential differences attributable to accelerometer placement. At each speed, a one-way repeated-measures ANOVA was used to examine differences between activity counts in counts per minute (cpm). Post hoc pairwise comparisons with Bonferroni adjustments were used where appropriate.

    Results: There were no significant differences between activity counts at any given walking or running speed (P < 0.05). At all running speeds, activity counts from the ActiGraph 7164 and GT1M-V2 displayed the lowest and highest values, respectively. Output from all accelerometers peaked at 14 km[middle dot]h-1 (mean range = 8974 +/- 677 to 9412 +/- 982 cpm) and then gradually declined at higher speeds. The mean difference score at peak output between the ActiGraph 7164 and GT1M-V2 was 439 +/- 565 cpm.

    Conclusions: There were no statistically significant differences between outputs from all the accelerometers, indicating that researchers can select any of the four ActiGraph accelerometers in doing research