Accuracy of 2 Activity Monitors in Detecting Steps in People With Stroke and Traumatic Brain Injury
Accuracy of 2 Activity Monitors in Detecting Steps in People With Stroke and Traumatic Brain Injury
复制标题
DOI：
10.2522/ptj.20120525
复制
发表时间：
2014-02-01
期刊：
影响因子：
3.2
通讯作者：
Reisman, Darcy S.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Fulk, George D.;Combs, Stephanie A.;Reisman, Darcy S.
背景传感器技术和信号处理技术的进步提供了一种精确测量家庭和社区中步行活动的方法。面向消费者或患者使用的活动监视器可能是为研究而设计的更昂贵的监视器的替代品，以测量步进活动。本研究的目的是检查2种消费者/患者活动监测器（Fitbit Ultra和Nike+ Fuelband）在识别中风和创伤性脑损伤（TBI）患者的步行活动方面的准确性。其次，该研究试图将这2个活动监测器的准确性与Step Watch活动监测器（SAM）和计步器（Yamax Digi-Walker SW-701计步器（YDWP））的准确性进行比较。本研究采用横断面设计。患有慢性中风和TBI的人在进行两分钟步行测试（2 MWT）时佩戴4个活动监测器，在此期间他们被录像。活动监测器估计的步数与录像带中的实际步数进行了比较。使用组内相关系数（[CC][2，11]）和Bland-Altman方法检查活动监测器估计步骤和实际步骤之间的准确性和一致性。地对空导弹表现出了（ICC [2，1] = 0.97，实际步数和SAM估计步数之间的平均差=4.7步），然后是Fitbit Ultra（ICC [2，1] = 0.73，实际步数和Fitbit Ultra估计步数之间的平均差=-9.7步），YDWP（ICC [2，1] = 0.42，实际步数和YDWP估计步数之间的平均差=-28.8步）和Nike+ Fuelband（ICC [2，1] = 0.20，实际步数和Nike+ Fuelband估计步数之间的平均差=-66.2步）。限制。在封闭环境中短距离测量行走活动，参与者是高功能的步行者，平均步态速度为0.93 m/s。Fitbit Ultra可能是一种低成本的替代方案，用于测量中风和TBI患者在水平、可预测的环境中的步行活动，这些人可以以>= 0.58 m/s的速度行走。
Background. Advances in sensor technologies and signal processing techniques provide a method to accurately measure walking activity in the home and community. Activity monitors geared toward consumer or patient use may be an alternative to more expensive monitors designed for research to measure stepping activity.Objective. The objective of this study was to examine the accuracy of 2 consumer/patient activity monitors, the Fitbit Ultra and the Nike+ Fuelband, in identifying stepping activity in people with stroke and traumatic brain injury (TBI). Secondarily, the study sought to compare the accuracy of these 2 activity monitors with that of the Step Watch Activity Monitor (SAM) and a pedometer, the Yamax Digi-Walker SW-701 pedometer (YDWP).Design. A cross-sectional design was used for this study.Method. People with chronic stroke and TBI wore the 4 activity monitors while they performed the Two-Minute Walk Test (2MWT), during which they were video-taped. Activity monitor estimated steps taken were compared with actual steps taken counted from videotape. Accuracy and agreement between activity monitor estimated steps and actual steps were examined using intraclass correlation coefficients ([CC [2,11) and the Bland-Altman method.Results. The SAM demonstrated the greatest accuracy (ICC [2,1] =.97, mean difference between actual steps and SAM estimated steps=4.7 steps) followed by the Fitbit Ultra (ICC [2,1] =.73, mean difference between actual steps and Fitbit Ultra estimated steps=-9.7 steps), the YDWP (ICC [2,1] =.42, mean difference between actual steps and YDWP estimated steps=-28.8 steps), and the Nike+ Fuelband (ICC [2,1] =.20, mean difference between actual steps and Nike+ Fuelband estimated steps=-66.2 steps).Limitations. Walking activity was measured over a short distance in a closed environment, and participants were high functioning ambulators, with a mean gait speed of 0.93 m/s.Conclusions. The Fitbit Ultra may be a low-cost alternative to measure the stepping activity in level, predictable environments of people with stroke and TBI who can walk at speeds >= 0.58 m/s.