↓ Skip to main content

Validity of treadmill- and track-based individual calibration methods for estimating free-living walking speed and VO2 using the Actigraph accelerometer

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Sports Science, Medicine and Rehabilitation, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (59th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
62 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
Validity of treadmill- and track-based individual calibration methods for estimating free-living walking speed and VO2 using the Actigraph accelerometer
Published in
BMC Sports Science, Medicine and Rehabilitation, November 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13102-015-0024-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anthony Barnett, Ester Cerin, Corneel Vandelanotte, Aya Matsumoto, David Jenkins

Abstract

For many patients clinical prescription of walking will be beneficial to health and accelerometers can be used to monitor their walking intensity, frequency and duration over many days. Walking intensity should include establishment of individual specific accelerometer count, walking speed and energy expenditure (VO2) relationships and this can be achieved using a walking protocol on a treadmill or overground. However, differences in gait mechanics during treadmill compared to overground walking may result in inaccurate estimations of free-living walking speed and VO2. The aims of this study were to compare the validity of track- and treadmill-based calibration methods for estimating free-living level walking speed and VO2 and to explain between-method differences in accuracy of estimation. Fifty healthy adults [32 women and 18 men; mean (SD): 40 (13) years] walked at four pre-determined speeds on an outdoor track and a treadmill, and completed three 1-km self-paced level walks while wearing an Actigraph monitor and a mobile oxygen analyser. Speed- and VO2-to-Actigraph count individual calibration equations were computed for each calibration method. Between-method differences in calibration equation parameters, prediction errors, and relationships of walking speed with VO2 and Actigraph counts were assessed. The treadmill-calibration equation overestimated free-living walking speed (on average, by 0.7 km · h(-1)) and VO2 (by 4.99 ml · kg(-1) · min(-1)), while the track-calibration equation did not. This was because treadmill walking, from which the calibration equation was derived, produced lower Actigraph counts and higher VO2 for a given walking speed compared to walking on a track. The prediction error associated with the use of the treadmill-calibration method increased with free-living walking speed. This issue was not observed when using the track-calibration method. The proposed track-based individual accelerometer calibration method can provide accurate and unbiased estimates of free-living walking speed and VO2 from walking. The treadmill-based calibration produces calibration equations that tend to substantially overestimate both VO2 and speed.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 62 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Spain 1 2%
Unknown 60 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 27%
Student > Master 12 19%
Student > Bachelor 10 16%
Researcher 6 10%
Other 4 6%
Other 7 11%
Unknown 6 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 15 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 16%
Engineering 7 11%
Social Sciences 7 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 6%
Other 9 15%
Unknown 10 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 17 December 2015.
All research outputs
#7,576,290
of 14,069,197 outputs
Outputs from BMC Sports Science, Medicine and Rehabilitation
#137
of 205 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#139,564
of 361,146 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Sports Science, Medicine and Rehabilitation
#17
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,069,197 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 205 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.4. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% 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 361,146 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.