Maintenance Notice

Due to necessary scheduled maintenance, the JMIR Publications website will be unavailable from Wednesday, July 01, 2020 at 8:00 PM to 10:00 PM EST. We apologize in advance for any inconvenience this may cause you.

Who will be affected?

Accepted for/Published in: JMIR mHealth and uHealth

Date Submitted: Aug 19, 2020
Date Accepted: Mar 15, 2021

The final, peer-reviewed published version of this preprint can be found here:

The Effect of Sensor Placement and Number on Physical Activity Recognition and Energy Expenditure Estimation in Older Adults: Validation Study

Davoudi A, Mardini MT, Nelson D, Albinali F, Ranka S, Rashidi P, Manini TM

The Effect of Sensor Placement and Number on Physical Activity Recognition and Energy Expenditure Estimation in Older Adults: Validation Study

JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2021;9(5):e23681

DOI: 10.2196/23681

PMID: 33938809

PMCID: 8129874

Warning: This is an author submission that is not peer-reviewed or edited. Preprints - unless they show as "accepted" - should not be relied on to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and should not be reported in news media as established information.

The Effect of Sensor Placement and Number on Physical Activity Recognition and Energy Expenditure Estimation

  • Anis Davoudi; 
  • Mamoun T. Mardini; 
  • Dave Nelson; 
  • Fahd Albinali; 
  • Sanjay Ranka; 
  • Parisa Rashidi; 
  • Todd M. Manini

ABSTRACT

Background:

Research shows the feasibility of human activity recognition using Wearable accelerometer devices. Different studies have used varying number and placement for data collection using the sensors.

Objective:

To compare accuracy performance between multiple and variable placement of accelerometer devices in categorizing the type of physical activity and corresponding energy expenditure in older adults.

Methods:

Participants (n=93, 72.2±7.1 yrs) completed a total of 32 activities of daily life in a laboratory setting. Activities were classified as sedentary vs. non-sedentary, locomotion vs. non-locomotion, and lifestyle vs. non-lifestyle activities (e.g. leisure walk vs. computer work). A portable metabolic unit was worn during each activity to measure metabolic equivalents (METs). Accelerometers were placed on five different body positions: wrist, hip, ankle, upper arm, and thigh. Accelerometer data from each body position and combinations of positions were used in developing Random Forest models to assess activity category recognition accuracy and MET estimation.

Results:

Model performance for both MET estimation and activity category recognition strengthened with additional accelerometer devices. However, a single accelerometer on the ankle, upper arm, hip, thigh, or wrist had only a 0.03 to 0.09 MET increase in prediction error as compared to wearing all five devices. Balanced accuracy showed similar trends with slight decreases in balanced accuracy for detection of locomotion (0-0.01 METs), sedentary (0.13-0.05 METs) and lifestyle activities (0.08-0.04 METs) compared to all five placements. The accuracy of recognizing activity categories increased with additional placements (0.15-0.29). Notably, the hip was the best single body position for MET estimation and activity category recognition.

Conclusions:

Additional accelerometer devices only slightly enhance activity recognition accuracy and MET estimation in older adults. However, given the extra burden of wearing additional devices, single accelerometers with appropriate placement appear to be sufficient for estimating energy expenditure and activity category recognition in older adults.


 Citation

Please cite as:

Davoudi A, Mardini MT, Nelson D, Albinali F, Ranka S, Rashidi P, Manini TM

The Effect of Sensor Placement and Number on Physical Activity Recognition and Energy Expenditure Estimation in Older Adults: Validation Study

JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2021;9(5):e23681

DOI: 10.2196/23681

PMID: 33938809

PMCID: 8129874

Download PDF


Request queued. Please wait while the file is being generated. It may take some time.

© The authors. All rights reserved. This is a privileged document currently under peer-review/community review (or an accepted/rejected manuscript). Authors have provided JMIR Publications with an exclusive license to publish this preprint on it's website for review and ahead-of-print citation purposes only. While the final peer-reviewed paper may be licensed under a cc-by license on publication, at this stage authors and publisher expressively prohibit redistribution of this draft paper other than for review purposes.