Estimating Human Energy Expenditure Using An Accelerometer Device

A triaxial accelerometer and portable data processing unit for the assessment of daily physical activity

“…Correction for the gravitational component under daily living conditions is practically impossible. In order to minimize the effect of the gravitational component on accelerometer output, Servais et al [31] argued that the attachment of accelerometers at locations where (the variation in) is small-e.g., the waist or the low back-is superior to locations where (the variation in) is large-e.g., the limbs. The precise effect of the gravitational component on and the relationship between and , however, is unknown and should be studied.…”

“…Considering the findings of these studies, body-fixed accelerometers must be able to register accelerations within the amplitude range of 12 to 12 g and with frequencies up to 20 Hz in order to assess daily physical activity. In general, body-fixed accelerometers for physical activity assessment are placed at waist level [5], [23], [31]. At this site an amplitude range of about 6 to 6 g will suffice.…”

Effects of placement and orientation of body-fixed accelerometers on the assessment of energy expenditure during walking

“…It had provided information in addition to the studies of Balogun et aL and Washburn and Laporte who studied the place of attachment of accelerometers, but did not include energy expenditure and/or gravitational acceleration in their investigations (BALOGUN et al, 1988;WAS) JBUKN and LAeORTE, 1988). Furthermore, it has refuted the suggestion that accelerometers for the assessment of EE,~r should always be attached to locations where (the change in) orientation with respect to the field of gravity is minimal (SERVA]S et aL, 1984;WATERS et aL, 1973).…”

Accelerometer output and its association with energy expenditure in persons with multiple sclerosis

“…The assumption of a strong association between accelerometer output and energy expenditure during dynamic physical activity [6][7] has been well tested in the general population [4,[8][9], but not in persons with MS. This observation is important considering that the strength and slope of the association might be different in persons with MS than in the general population.…”