IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v14y2017i12p1487-d121097.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Automated Ecological Assessment of Physical Activity: Advancing Direct Observation

Author

Listed:
  • Jordan A. Carlson

    (Department of Pediatrics, Children’s Mercy Kansas City, Kansas City, MO 64108, USA)

  • Bo Liu

    (Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093, USA)

  • James F. Sallis

    (Department of Family Medicine and Public Health, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093, USA)

  • Jacqueline Kerr

    (Department of Family Medicine and Public Health, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093, USA)

  • J. Aaron Hipp

    (Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism Management, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695, USA)

  • Vincent S. Staggs

    (Department of Pediatrics, Children’s Mercy Kansas City, Kansas City, MO 64108, USA)

  • Amy Papa

    (Department of Pediatrics, Children’s Mercy Kansas City, Kansas City, MO 64108, USA)

  • Kelsey Dean

    (Department of Pediatrics, Children’s Mercy Kansas City, Kansas City, MO 64108, USA)

  • Nuno M. Vasconcelos

    (Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093, USA)

Abstract

Technological advances provide opportunities for automating direct observations of physical activity, which allow for continuous monitoring and feedback. This pilot study evaluated the initial validity of computer vision algorithms for ecological assessment of physical activity. The sample comprised 6630 seconds per camera (three cameras in total) of video capturing up to nine participants engaged in sitting, standing, walking, and jogging in an open outdoor space while wearing accelerometers. Computer vision algorithms were developed to assess the number and proportion of people in sedentary, light, moderate, and vigorous activity, and group-based metabolic equivalents of tasks (MET)-minutes. Means and standard deviations (SD) of bias/difference values, and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) assessed the criterion validity compared to accelerometry separately for each camera. The number and proportion of participants sedentary and in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) had small biases (within 20% of the criterion mean) and the ICCs were excellent (0.82–0.98). Total MET-minutes were slightly underestimated by 9.3–17.1% and the ICCs were good (0.68–0.79). The standard deviations of the bias estimates were moderate-to-large relative to the means. The computer vision algorithms appeared to have acceptable sample-level validity (i.e., across a sample of time intervals) and are promising for automated ecological assessment of activity in open outdoor settings, but further development and testing is needed before such tools can be used in a diverse range of settings.

Suggested Citation

  • Jordan A. Carlson & Bo Liu & James F. Sallis & Jacqueline Kerr & J. Aaron Hipp & Vincent S. Staggs & Amy Papa & Kelsey Dean & Nuno M. Vasconcelos, 2017. "Automated Ecological Assessment of Physical Activity: Advancing Direct Observation," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-15, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:14:y:2017:i:12:p:1487-:d:121097
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/14/12/1487/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/14/12/1487/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lin L. & Hedayat A. S. & Sinha B. & Yang M., 2002. "Statistical Methods in Assessing Agreement: Models, Issues, and Tools," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 97, pages 257-270, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Richard R. Suminski & Gregory M. Dominick & Eric Plautz, 2022. "Assessing Park Quality with a Wearable Video Device and an Unmanned Aerial System," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(18), pages 1-11, September.
    2. Richard R. Suminski & Gregory M. Dominick & Eric Plautz, 2019. "Validation of the Block Walk Method for Assessing Physical Activity occurring on Sidewalks/Streets," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(11), pages 1-14, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jose M. Jimenez-Olmedo & Alfonso Penichet-Tomas & Basilio Pueo & Lamberto Villalon-Gasch, 2023. "Reliability of ADR Jumping Photocell: Comparison of Beam Cut at Forefoot and Midfoot," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(11), pages 1-13, May.
    2. Liao Jason J. Z. & Capen Robert, 2011. "An Improved Bland-Altman Method for Concordance Assessment," The International Journal of Biostatistics, De Gruyter, vol. 7(1), pages 1-17, January.
    3. Hutson, Alan D., 2010. "A multi-rater nonparametric test of agreement and corresponding agreement plot," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 54(1), pages 109-119, January.
    4. Masha Kocherginsky & Megan Huisingh-Scheetz & William Dale & Diane S Lauderdale & Linda Waite, 2017. "Measuring Physical Activity with Hip Accelerometry among U.S. Older Adults: How Many Days Are Enough?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(1), pages 1-13, January.
    5. Correndo, Adrian A. & Hefley, Trevor J. & Holzworth, Dean P. & Ciampitti, Ignacio A., 2021. "Revisiting linear regression to test agreement in continuous predicted-observed datasets," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 192(C).
    6. Choudhary, Pankaj K., 2007. "Semiparametric regression for assessing agreement using tolerance bands," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 51(12), pages 6229-6241, August.
    7. Choudhary Pankaj K, 2010. "A Unified Approach for Nonparametric Evaluation of Agreement in Method Comparison Studies," The International Journal of Biostatistics, De Gruyter, vol. 6(1), pages 1-26, June.
    8. Chen, Chia-Cheng & Barnhart, Huiman X., 2008. "Comparison of ICC and CCC for assessing agreement for data without and with replications," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 53(2), pages 554-564, December.
    9. Dejian Lai & Shyang-Yun Pamela Shiao, 2005. "Comparing two clinical measurements: a linear mixed model approach," Journal of Applied Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(8), pages 855-860.
    10. Li, Runze & Chow, Mosuk, 2005. "Evaluation of reproducibility for paired functional data," Journal of Multivariate Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 93(1), pages 81-101, March.
    11. Wei, Bo & Dai, Tian & Peng, Limin & Guo, Ying & Manatunga, Amita, 2020. "A new functional representation of broad sense agreement," Statistics & Probability Letters, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    12. Gao, Jingjing & Pan, Yi & Haber, Michael, 2012. "Assessment of observer agreement for matched repeated binary measurements," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 56(5), pages 1052-1060.
    13. Lisa R. Goldberg & Saad Mouti, 2019. "Sustainable Investing and the Cross-Section of Returns and Maximum Drawdown," Papers 1905.05237, arXiv.org, revised Dec 2023.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:14:y:2017:i:12:p:1487-:d:121097. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.