↓ Skip to main content

The method of attachment influences accelerometer-based activity data in dogs

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Veterinary Research, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
40 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The method of attachment influences accelerometer-based activity data in dogs
Published in
BMC Veterinary Research, February 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12917-017-0971-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kyle W. Martin, Anastasia M. Olsen, Colleen G. Duncan, Felix M. Duerr

Abstract

Accelerometer-based activity monitoring is a promising new tool in veterinary medicine used to objectively assess activity levels in dogs. To date, it is unknown how device orientation, attachment method, and attachment of a leash to the collar holding an accelerometer affect canine activity data. It was our goal to evaluate whether attachment methods of accelerometers affect activity counts. Eight healthy, client-owned dogs were fitted with two identical neck collars to which two identical activity monitors were attached using six different methods of attachment. These methods of attachment evaluated the use of a protective case, positioning of the activity monitor and the tightness of attachment of the accelerometer. Lastly, the effect of leash attachment to the collar was evaluated. For trials where the effect of leash attachment to the collar was not being studied, the leash was attached to a harness. Activity data obtained from separate monitors within a given experiment were compared using Pearson correlation coefficients and across all experiments using the Kruskal-Wallis Test. There was excellent correlation and low variability between activity monitors on separate collars when the leash was attached to a harness, regardless of their relative positions. There was good correlation when activity monitors were placed on the same collar regardless of orientation. There were poor correlations between activity monitors in three experiments: when the leash was fastened to the collar that held an activity monitor, when one activity monitor was housed in the protective casing, and when one activity monitor was loosely zip-tied to the collar rather than threaded on using the provided metal loop. Follow-up, pair-wise comparisons identified the correlation associated with these three methods of attachment to be statistically different from the level of correlation when monitors were placed on separate collars. While accelerometer-based activity monitors are useful tools to objectively assess physical activity in dogs, care must be taken when choosing a method to attach the device. The attachment of the activity monitor to the collar should utilize a second, dedicated collar that is not used for leash attachment and the attachment method should remain consistent throughout a study period.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 40 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 23%
Student > Master 7 18%
Researcher 5 13%
Other 4 10%
Student > Bachelor 2 5%
Other 5 13%
Unknown 8 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 11 28%
Computer Science 6 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 10%
Engineering 4 10%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 7 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 13 February 2017.
All research outputs
#6,902,927
of 9,059,795 outputs
Outputs from BMC Veterinary Research
#904
of 1,406 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#223,886
of 312,526 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Veterinary Research
#34
of 56 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 9,059,795 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,406 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.8. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% 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 312,526 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 56 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.