ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2021
Evaluating Pedometer Algorithms on Semi-Regular and Unstructured Gaits.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Indoor positioning systems provide insight into emergency department systems enabling proposal of designs to improve workflow.Communications medicine · 2025Article
- Open-Source, Step-Counting Algorithm for Smartphone Data Collected in Clinical and Nonclinical Settings: Algorithm Development and Validation Study.JMIR cancer · 2023Article
- Development and Validation of a Machine Learning Wrist-worn Step Detection Algorithm with Deployment in the UK Biobank.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.