Comparison of Four ActiGraph Accelerometers during Walking and Running
Comparison of Four ActiGraph Accelerometers during Walking and Running
复制标题
DOI：
10.1249/mss.0b013e3181b3af49
复制
发表时间：
2010-02-01
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Bassett, David R.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
John, Dinesh;Tyo, Brian;Bassett, David R.
约翰，D.，B。TYO和D. R.巴塞特。步行和跑步过程中四种ActiGraph加速度计的比较。医学科学体育锻炼：第42卷，第2期，第100页。368-374 2010年。目前，研究人员可以使用ActiGraph 7164或ActiGraph GT I M的三个不同版本之一客观地测量身体活动。目的：为了确定活动之间是否存在差异;在给定的步行和跑步速度下，ActiGraph 7164和三个版本的GT 1 M的计数。研究方法：告诉男性参与者（23.6 +/- 2.7岁）在佩戴ActiGraph 7164和最新的GT 1 M（GT 1 M-V3）或GT 1 M版本1（GT 1 M-V1）和GT 1 M版本2（GT 1 M-V2）时以10种不同速度（3分钟阶段）完成跑步机行走和跑步。参与者步行3。5和7 km.h（-1），然后以8、10、12、14、16、18和20 km.h（-1）运行。加速度计被佩戴在腰部的弹性带上，在臀部的左侧和右侧。在不同日期使用平衡受试者内设计进行测试，以解释归因于加速计放置的潜在差异。在每种速度下，使用单向重复测量ANOVA检查活动计数（每分钟计数（cpm））之间的差异。在适当情况下，使用Bonferroni调整的事后成对比较。结果：在不同的步行速度和跑步速度下，两组的活动计数差异均无统计学意义（P < 0.05）。在所有跑步速度下，ActiGraph 7164和GT 1 M-V2的活动计数分别显示最低和最高值。所有加速度计的输出在14 km.h（-1）时达到峰值（平均范围= 8974 +/- 677至9412 +/- 982 cpm），然后在较高速度时逐渐下降。ActiGraph 7164和GT 1 M-V2之间峰值输出时的平均差异评分为439 565 cpm。结论：所有加速度计的输出之间没有统计学上的显著差异，这表明研究人员可以在进行研究时选择四个ActiGraph加速度计中的任何一个。
JOHN, D., B. TYO, and D. R. BASSETT. Comparison of Four ActiGraph Accelerometers during Walking and Running. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc., Vol. 42, No. 2, pp. 368-374 2010. Currently, researchers can use the ActiGraph 7164 or one of three different versions of the ActiGraph GT I M 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: Tell 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.h(-1) followed by running at 8, 10 12 14, 16, 18, and 20 km.h(-1). The accelerometers were worn oil an elastic belt around the waist over the left and fight 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.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 as 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.