Purpose This study aimed to determine the validity of existing methods to estimate sedentary behavior (SB) under free-living conditions using ActiGraph GT3X+ accelerometers (AG). Methods Forty-eight young (18–25 yr) adults wore an AG on the right hip and nondominant wrist and were video recorded during four 1-h sessions in free-living settings (home, community, school, and exercise). Direct observation videos were coded for postural orientation, activity type (e.g., walking), and METs derived from the Compendium of Physical Activities, which served as the criterion measure of SB (sitting or lying posture, <1.5 METs). Thirteen methods using cut points from vertical counts per minute (CPM), counts per 15-s (CP15s), and vector magnitude (VM) counts (e.g., CPM1853VM), raw acceleration and arm angle (sedentary sphere), Euclidean norm minus one (ENMO) corrected for gravity (mg) thresholds, uni- or triaxial sojourn hybrid machine learning models (Soj1x and Soj3x), random forest (RF), and decision tree (TR) models were used to estimate SB minutes from AG data. Method bias, mean absolute percent error, and their 95% confidence intervals were estimated using repeated-measures linear mixed models. Results On average, participants spent 34.1 min per session in SB. CPM100, CPM150, Soj1x, and Soj3x were the only methods to accurately estimate SB from the hip. Sedentary sphere and ENMO44.8 overestimated SB by 3.9 and 6.1 min, respectively, whereas the remaining wrist methods underestimated SB (range, 9.5–2.5 min). In general, mean absolute percent error was lower using hip methods compared with wrist methods. Conclusion Accurate group-level estimates of SB from a hip-worn AG can be achieved using either simpler count-based approaches (CPM100 and CPM150) or machine learning models (Soj1x and Soj3x). Wrist methods did not provide accurate or precise estimates of SB. The development of large open-source free-living calibration data sets may lead to improvements in SB estimates.

Purpose: Develop a direct observation (DO) system to serve as a criterion measure for the calibration of models applied to free-living (FL) accelerometer data. Methods: Ten participants (19.4 ± 0.8 years) were video-recorded during four, one-hour FL sessions in different settings: 1) school, 2) home, 3) community, and 4) physical activity. For each setting, 10-minute clips from three randomly selected sessions were extracted and coded by one expert coder and up to 20 trained coders using the Observer XT software (Noldus, Wageningen, the Netherlands). The coder defines each whole-body movement which was further described with three modifiers: 1) locomotion, 2) activity type, and 3) MET value (used to categorize intensity level). Percent agreement was calculated for intra- and inter-rater reliability. For intra-rater reliability, the criterion coder coded all 12 clips twice, separated by at least one week between coding sessions. For inter-rater reliability, coded clips by trained coders were compared to the expert coder. Intraclass correlations (ICCs) were calculated to assess the agreement of intensity category for intra- and inter-rater comparisons described above. Results: For intra-rater reliability, mean percent agreement ranged from 91.9 ± 3.9% to 100.0 ± 0.0% across all variables in all settings. For inter-rater reliability, mean percent agreement ranged from 88.2 ± 3.5% to 100.0 ± 0.0% across all variables in all settings. ICCs for intensity category ranged from 0.74–1.00 and 0.81–1.00 for intra- and inter-rater comparisons, respectively. Conclusion: The DO system is reliable and feasible to serve as a criterion measure of FL physical activity in young adults to calibrate accelerometers, subsequently improving interpretation of surveillance and intervention research.

No abstract

Given high rates of obesity and chronic disease in both people and dogs, it is important to understand how dogs and dog owners influence each other’s health, including physical activity (PA) levels. Research suggests that dog owners who walk their dogs are more likely to meet PA guidelines than those who do not, but few studies have investigated dog walking intensity or its contribution to dog owners’ total moderate-to-vigorous PA using accelerometry. Furthermore, no studies have examined the contribution of dog walking to dogs’ total PA or the relationship between dog and dog owner PA using accelerometers on dogs. The authors used accelerometers on 33 dog owner–dog pairs to investigate (a) the intensity of dog walking behavior, (b) the contribution of dog walking to dog owners’ overall moderate-to-vigorous PA and dogs’ overall PA, and (c) the correlation between dog and dog owner PA. Dog owners wore an ActiGraph accelerometer and logged all dog walking for 7 days; dogs wore a Fitbark activity monitor. On average, 64.1% (95% confidence interval [55.2, 73.1]) of daily dog walking was moderate to vigorous intensity, and dog walking accounted for 51.2% (95% confidence interval [44.1, 58.3]) of dog owners’ daily moderate-to-vigorous PA. Dog walking accounted for 41.2% (95% confidence interval [36.0, 46.4]) of dogs’ daily PA. Dog owners’ daily steps were moderately correlated (r = .54) with dogs’ daily activity points. These findings demonstrate the interdependence of dog and dog owner PA and can inform interventions that leverage the dog–owner bond to promote PA and health in both species.

Purpose: Determine the sensitivity of the Misfit Shine™ (MS) to detect changes in physical activity (PA) measures (steps, "points," kCals) in laboratory (LAB) and free-living (FL) conditions. Methods: Twenty-one participants wore the MS and ActiGraph GT3X+™ accelerometer (AG) at the hip and dominant-wrist during three, one-hour LAB sessions: sedentary (SS), sedentary plus walking (SW), and sedentary plus jogging (SJ). Direct observation (DO) of steps served as the criterion measure. Devices were also worn during two FL conditions: 1) active week (ACT) and 2) inactive week (INACT). For LAB and FL, significant differences were examined using paired t-tests and linear mixed effects models, respectively. Linear mixed effects models were used to estimate differences between MS estimated steps and DO (α ≤ 0.05). Results: For all hip-worn MS measures and wrist-worn MS estimates of steps and "points," there was a significant increase (p < .05) from SS to SJ. However, wrist-worn MS kCal estimates were greater for SJ, compared to SS and SW, which were similar to each other (95% CI [95.5, 152.8] and [141.1, 378.9], respectively). Compared with DO, MS hip significantly underestimated steps by 3.5%, while MS wrist significantly overestimated steps by 4.2%. During FL conditions, all MS measures were sensitive to changes between ACT and INACT (p < .0001). Conclusion: Although there were systematic errors in step estimates from the MS, it was sensitive to changes during LAB and FL, and may be a useful tool for interventionists where tracking changes in PA is an important exposure or outcome variable.