Evidence Hub

Autocalibration of accelerometer data for free-living physical activity assessment using local gravity and temperature: an evaluation on four continents

V. V. van Hees, Zhou Fang, Joss Langford, F. Assah, A. Mohammad, I. D. Da Silva, M. Trenell, Tom White et al.

Journal of applied physiology, 2014

921 participants · 613 citations

Abstract

Wearable acceleration sensors are increasingly used for the assessment of free-living physical activity. Acceleration sensor calibration is a potential source of error. This study aims to describe and evaluate an autocalibration method to minimize calibration error using segments within the free-living records (no extra experiments needed). The autocalibration method entailed the extraction of nonmovement periods in the data, for which the measured vector magnitude should ideally be the gravitational acceleration (1 g); this property was used to derive calibration correction factors using an iterative closest-point fitting process. The reduction in calibration error was evaluated in data from four cohorts: UK (n = 921), Kuwait (n = 120), Cameroon (n = 311), and Brazil (n = 200). Our method significantly reduced calibration error in all cohorts (P 0.05). Temperature correction coefficients were highest for the z-axis, e.g., 19.6-mg offset per 5°C. Further, application of the autocalibration method had a significant impact on typical metrics used for describing human physical activity, e.g., in Brazil average wrist acceleration was 0.2 to 51% lower than uncalibrated values depending on metric selection (P < 0.01). The autocalibration method as presented helps reduce the calibration error in wearable acceleration sensor data and improves comparability of physical activity measures across study locations. Temperature ultization seems essential when temperature deviates…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 921 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free