RMA DelaysOur Admin Portal website is currently experiencing technical difficulties, and it could result in delays with RMAs being processed. We are currently working to resolve these issues. We apologize for the inconvenience.
Join us on August 11th for an ActiGraph webinar hosted by Xtalks:
Oncology Research and Care: Reimagining Digital InnovationRegister Now
Comparison of postural classification from thigh-worn Actigraph GT3X+ and ActivPal3 accelerometers under laboratory and free-living conditions
- Presented on May 21, 2014
Purpose: This study compared sitting, standing, and stepping classifications from thigh-worn Actigraph and ActivPAL monitors under laboratory and free-living conditions.
Methods: Adults wore both monitors on the right thigh while performing 6 sitting, 2 standing, 8 stepping, and 1 cycling activity under laboratory observation (n=21), and during three days free-living (n=18). Percent of time correctly classified into postures was calculated under laboratory conditions. Between-monitor percent agreement and weighted kappa were calculated under free-living conditions.
Results: n the laboratory, both monitors correctly classified 100% of time in standing activities and >95% of time in four sitting activities. Both monitors demonstrated substantial misclassification of laboratory stool sitting (Actigraph 14%, ActivPAL 95%), and ActivPAL (14%) misclassified sitting with legs outstretched more often than Actigraph (0%). Actigraph misclassified more time spent descending stairs (14%) and ascending stairs (8%) than ActivPAL which correctly classified >95% of time in all stepping activities. The ActivPAL classified cycling as stepping 93% of time, but the Actigraph classified cycling as stepping <1% of time. During free-living wear, Actigraph and ActivPAL data matched second-by-second had high observed agreement (86%) and substantial agreement when accounting for chance (weighted kappa=0.77). The levels of agreement are due primarily to the relatively high volume of time recorded as sitting (Actigraph 64%, ActivPAL 62%), but there were differences in time recorded as standing (Actigraph 21%, ActivPAL 27%), and stepping (Actigraph 15%, ActivPAL 11%).
Conclusions: Differences in data processing algorithms based on thigh angle may have resulted in disagreement in posture classification between thigh-worn Actigraph and ActivPAL.
ISBNPA 2014 Annual Conference