| Title |
Comparison of two waist-mounted and two ankle-mounted electronic pedometers
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Journal of Applied Physiology, August 2005
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00421-005-0018-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Murat Karabulut, Scott E. Crouter, David R. Bassett |
| Abstract |
This study compared two ankle-mounted pedometers [StepWatch 3 (SW-3(Ankle)) and Activity Monitoring Pod 331 (AMP(Ankle))] and two waist-mounted pedometers [New Lifestyles NL-2000 (NL(Waist)) and Digiwalker SW-701 (SW-701(Waist))] under controlled and free-living conditions. In part I, 20 participants walked on a treadmill at speeds of 27-107 m min(-1). Actual steps were counted with a hand counter. In part II, participants performed leg swinging, heel tapping, stationary cycling, and car driving. In part III, 15 participants wore all pedometers for a 24 h period. The SW-3(Ankle) displayed values that were within 1% of actual steps during treadmill walking at all speeds. The other devices underestimated steps at slow speeds but all gave mean values that were within +/-3% of actual steps at 80 m min(-1) and above. The SW-3(Ankle) registered some steps during heel tapping, leg swinging, and cycling, while the AMP(Ankle) was only responsive to leg swinging. During car driving no devices recorded more than eight steps, on average. Over 24 h, the AMP(Ankle) recorded 18% fewer steps than the SW-3(Ankle) (P<0.05), while the SW-701(Waist) and the NL(Waist) recorded 15 and 11% less than the SW-3(Ankle), respectively (NSD). The SW-3(Ankle) has superior accuracy at slow treadmill walking speeds (although it was also more likely to detect "fidgeting" activities). Over 24 h, the SW-3(Ankle) tended to give higher estimates of steps per day than the other ankle- and waist-mounted pedometers. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 96 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | 3% |
| United States | 2 | 2% |
| Brazil | 1 | 1% |
| Czechia | 1 | 1% |
| Colombia | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 88 | 92% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 17 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 17 | 18% |
| Researcher | 10 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 8% |
| Unspecified | 7 | 7% |
| Other | 22 | 23% |
| Unknown | 15 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 16 | 17% |
| Sports and Recreations | 14 | 15% |
| Engineering | 12 | 13% |
| Computer Science | 9 | 9% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 7 | 7% |
| Other | 18 | 19% |
| Unknown | 20 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 March 2011.
All research outputs
#8,534,976
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Applied Physiology
#2,159
of 4,345 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,680
of 68,269 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Applied Physiology
#8
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,345 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 68,269 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.