Full length articleComparison of tri-axial accelerometers step-count accuracy in slow walking conditions
Introduction
Affordable accelerometer-based Body Worn Monitors (BWM) have been shown to be a promising tool for gait monitoring [1], [2], [3]. However, BWM may not be accurate when assessing physical activity levels in slow walking populations [4], [5], [6]. Some pedometers and accelerometers have been shown to underestimate the step counts at slow walking speeds [4], and the accuracy of step count estimation decreased as the speed became slower [5].
There are two factors that may lead to the decreased accuracy of step counts from accelerometer systems in slow speeds. First, the algorithms adopted by the companies to analyze the data generated by the accelerometers’ hardware may not be able to accurately estimate steps. Attention has been focused upon designing algorithms for average or fast walking speeds [8], [9], [10]. For example, many algorithms identify the cyclic nature of walking based on the stride frequencies and symmetric gait [11], [12], which may be violated by altered gait, including slower speeds. The thresholds in these algorithms are often set to deprioritize the low-energy slow walks in order to control the accuracy for normal speed [13].
Secondly, the accelerometers’ hardware may have a decreased sensitivity to detect steps when walking at a slow speed. For instance, the kinematics, such as stride dimensions, temporal components and displacement of body segments, vary between slow and normal speed [7]. These kinematic factors are important for the accelerometers’ hardware to detect body movement and collect physical activity data. However, we have limited knowledge on the sensitivity of the raw data from the accelerometers in capturing these changes in slow walking populations. Whereas pedometer accuracy is solely reliant on the hardware configuration, the extent of an accelerometer’s inaccuracy due to its hardware sensitivity is more difficult to determine. As new scientific teams are beginning to utilize these accelerometers to collect raw accelerometer data for purposes of their own analysis [14], [15], not knowing the accuracy of the hardware poses a problem for these researchers.
In this paper, we address problem of determining an accelerometer’s hardware accuracy by evaluating the hardware accuracy of three recommended accelerometers – Axivity AX3, APDM Opal and ActiGraph wGT3X-BT – in four minutes of treadmill walking at the speeds of 0.9 m/s, 1.1 m/s, and 1.3 m/s. We do this by holding the step detection algorithm constant and estimating the step counts based on the raw data collected by the accelerometer’s hardware in these slow-walking conditions. We construct a symbolization of the gait data to count the steps using Piecewise Aggregate Approximation and compare the estimated step counts with observer counted steps from video recordings. Our algorithm is validated by comparing to the accuracy of the propriety algorithm of the ActiGraph wGT3X-BT. We therefore make two contributions with this paper: (1) our comparison allows us to identify the accelerometers that are more or less effective in the measurement of step counts at slow walking speeds and (2) we shed some light on the contributing factors to the variation in step count found between different accelerometer systems.
Section snippets
Accelerometer devices
The three commercially available tri-axial accelerometer-based BWMs that were used in our study include APDM Opal (Portland, OR), Actigraph wGT3X-BT (Pensacola, FL) and Axivity AX3 (Newcastle upon Tyne, UK). In a systematic review of technological-based devices for assessing Parkinson’s disease, both APDM Mobility Lab and Axivity AX3 have been found to be reliable and valid devices for motor symptoms monitoring [16]. Actigraph GT3X, GT3X+, and GT1M were also suggested to be valid, however, with
Results
A total of 11 female and 14 male university students without any health condition that affects walking participated in the study. Further demographics are shown in Table 1.
Discussion
The comparison of step counts from our algorithm with the observed step counts shows that the Axivity AX3 captures data most accurately, while Actigraph wGT3X-BT was found to be the least accurate. The range of percent errors across the three devices is from 22.4% to 32.7%. The validation of the algorithm shows that the propriety algorithm generated an even higher error rate for the least accurate accelerometer, Actigraph wGT3X-BT. These results suggest that there is a fundamental difference
Conclusion
In this study, we compared the accuracy of three commercially available accelerometers in estimating the steps at slow speeds by holding the step-count algorithm constant. Our results show that Axivity AX3 provides more accurate step counts than the other two devices. Based on our results, we provide evidence for future scientific teams to make decisions on selecting accelerometers which can more accurately measure steps taken at slower walking speeds, and suggest personalizing the device
Conflict of interest
None.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Mr. Ubani Jademi, Ms. Monica Martinez, and Mr. Kyle Althoff for their help in data collection, and all the volunteers who participated.
References (37)
- et al.
Instrumenting gait with an accelerometer: a system and algorithm examination
Med. Eng. Phys.
(2015) - et al.
Gait posture estimation using wearable acceleration and gyro sensors
J. Biomech.
(2009) - et al.
Estimation of gait cycle characteristics by trunk accelerometry
J. Biomech.
(2004) - et al.
Development of a wearable sensor system for quantitative gait analysis
Measurement
(2009) - et al.
Freedson PS: validation and comparison of ActiGraph activity monitors
J. Sci. Med. Sport
(2011) - et al.
Gait analysis during treadmill and overground locomotion in children and adults
Electroencephalography Clin. Neurophysiol./Electromyography Motor Control
(1997) - et al.
Reference data for normal subjects obtained with an accelerometric device
Gait Posture
(2002) A sensitivity analysis on the variability in accelerometer data processing for monitoring physical activity
Gait Posture
(2015)- et al.
Accelerometry: providing an integrated, practical method for long-term, ambulatory monitoring of human movement
Physiol. Meas.
(2004) - et al.
A review of accelerometry-based wearable motion detectors for physical activity monitoring
Sensors
(2010)