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 the criterion accelerations produced by an orbital shaker table at speeds ranging from 0.6 Hz (4.4 milligravity-mg) to 3.2 Hz (124.7mg). For reliability testing, identical devices were oscillated at 0.6 and 3.2 Hz for 5 trials that lasted 2 minutes each. For validity testing, devices were oscillated for 1 trial across 7 speeds that lasted 2 minutes each. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was calculated to test inter-device reliability. Pearson product moment, Lin’s concordance correlation coefficient (CCC), absolute error, and mean bias were calculated to assess the validity between the raw estimates from the devices and the criterion metric. Estimates produced by the raw accelerometry data from Apple and ActiGraph were more reliable ICCs=0.99 and 0.97 than Garmin and Fitbit ICCs=0.88 and 0.88, respectively. Estimates from ActiGraph, Apple, and Fitbit devices exhibited excellent concordance with the criterion 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 criterion based on the mean aggregation method. ActiGraph produced the lowest mean bias 0.0mg (95%CI=-40.0, 41.0) based on the mean aggregation method. Raw accelerometry data collected from Apple and Fitbit are comparable to ActiGraph. However, raw accelerometry data from Garmin appears to be different. Future studies may be able to develop algorithms using device-agnostic methods for estimating physical activity from consumer wearables.
Competing Interest Statement
I have read the journal's policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: Unrelated to this work Dr. Weaver and Dr. Armstrong report board membership and ownership shares in Trackster LLC. Unrelated to this work Dr. de Zambotti reports grants from Noctrix Health and Verily Life Science LLC (Alphabet Inc.), and is a co-founder and Chief Scientific Officer at Lisa Health Inc. and has ownership of shares in Lisa Health.
Funding Statement
Research reported in this publication was supported in part by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Award Number R01DK129215 (RGW) and F31DK136205 (JWW). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. https://www.niddk.nih.gov/research-funding
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Not Applicable
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
IRB approval was not required by the Office of Research Compliance at the University of South Carolina because the study did not include human subjects.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Not Applicable
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Not Applicable
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Not Applicable
Data Availability
Data cannot be shared publicly because of the institutional review board policies of the lead author. The data underlying the results presented in the study are available upon reasonable request.
