IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0286898.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison of raw accelerometry data from ActiGraph, Apple Watch, Garmin, and Fitbit using a mechanical shaker table

Author

Listed:
  • James W White III
  • Olivia L Finnegan
  • Nick Tindall
  • Srihari Nelakuditi
  • David E Brown III
  • Russell R Pate
  • Gregory J Welk
  • Massimiliano de Zambotti
  • Rahul Ghosal
  • Yuan Wang
  • Sarah Burkart
  • Elizabeth L Adams
  • Mvs Chandrashekhar
  • Bridget Armstrong
  • Michael W Beets
  • R Glenn Weaver

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the reliability and validity of the raw accelerometry output from research-grade and consumer wearable devices compared to accelerations produced by a mechanical shaker table. Raw accelerometry data from a total of 40 devices (i.e., n = 10 ActiGraph wGT3X-BT, n = 10 Apple Watch Series 7, n = 10 Garmin Vivoactive 4S, and n = 10 Fitbit Sense) were compared to reference accelerations produced by an orbital shaker table at speeds ranging from 0.6 Hz (4.4 milligravity-mg) to 3.2 Hz (124.7mg). Two-way random effects absolute intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) tested inter-device reliability. Pearson product moment, Lin’s concordance correlation coefficient (CCC), absolute error, mean bias, and equivalence testing were calculated to assess the validity between the raw estimates from the devices and the reference metric. Estimates from Apple, ActiGraph, Garmin, and Fitbit were reliable, with ICCs = 0.99, 0.97, 0.88, and 0.88, respectively. Estimates from ActiGraph, Apple, and Fitbit devices exhibited excellent concordance with the reference CCCs = 0.88, 0.83, and 0.85, respectively, while estimates from Garmin exhibited moderate concordance CCC = 0.59 based on the mean aggregation method. ActiGraph, Apple, and Fitbit produced similar absolute errors = 16.9mg, 21.6mg, and 22.0mg, respectively, while Garmin produced higher absolute error = 32.5mg compared to the reference. ActiGraph produced the lowest mean bias 0.0mg (95%CI = -40.0, 41.0). Equivalence testing revealed raw accelerometry data from all devices were not statistically significantly within the equivalence bounds of the shaker speed. Findings from this study provide evidence that raw accelerometry data from Apple, Garmin, and Fitbit devices can be used to reliably estimate movement; however, no estimates were statistically significantly equivalent to the reference. Future studies could explore device-agnostic and harmonization methods for estimating physical activity using the raw accelerometry signals from the consumer wearables studied herein.

Suggested Citation

  • James W White III & Olivia L Finnegan & Nick Tindall & Srihari Nelakuditi & David E Brown III & Russell R Pate & Gregory J Welk & Massimiliano de Zambotti & Rahul Ghosal & Yuan Wang & Sarah Burkart & , 2024. "Comparison of raw accelerometry data from ActiGraph, Apple Watch, Garmin, and Fitbit using a mechanical shaker table," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(3), pages 1-16, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0286898
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0286898
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0286898
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0286898&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0286898?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:plo:pone00:0286898. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.