Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34206289›Full record

ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2021

Evaluating Pedometer Algorithms on Semi-Regular and Unstructured Gaits.

Ryan Mattfeld, Elliot Jesch, Adam Hoover

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Ryan MattfeldComputer Science Department, Elon University, Elon, NC 27244, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-8116-2751
Elliot JeschDepartment of Food, Nutrition, and Packaging Sciences, Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634, USA.
Adam HooverHolcombe Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634, USA.

Funding

Brooks Sports Science Institute N/A
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Pedometers are popular for counting steps as a daily measure of physical activity, however, errors as high as 96% have been reported in previous work. Many reasons for pedometer error have been studied, including walking speed, sensor position on the body and pedometer algorithm, demonstrating some differences in error. However, we hypothesize that the largest source of error may be due to differences in the regularity of gait during different activities. During some activities, gait tends to be regular and the repetitiveness of individual steps makes them easy to identify in an accelerometer signal. During other activities of everyday life, gait is frequently semi-regular or unstructured, which we hypothesize makes it difficult to identify and count individual steps. In this work, we test this hypothesis by evaluating the three most common types of pedometer algorithm on a new data set that varies the regularity of gait. A total of 30 participants were video recorded performing three different activities: walking a path (regular gait), conducting a within-building activity (semi-regular gait), and conducting a within-room activity (unstructured gait). Participants were instrumented with accelerometers on the wrist, hip and ankle. Collectively, 60,805 steps were manually annotated for ground truth using synchronized video. The main contribution of this paper is to evaluate pedometer algorithms when the consistency of gait changes to simulate everyday life activities other than exercise. In our study, we found that semi-regular and unstructured gaits resulted in 5-466% error. This demonstrates the need to evaluate pedometer algorithms on activities that vary the regularity of gait. Our dataset is publicly available with links provided in the introduction and Data Availability Statement.

Indexed as

ActigraphyGaitAlgorithmsHumansWalkingWalking Speedaccelerometer datasetmHealthmultiple gaitspedometerwearable sensors

Identifiers

PMID34206289
PMCPMC8272166

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.