Cargando…

Evaluating the Validity of Current Mainstream Wearable Devices in Fitness Tracking Under Various Physical Activities: Comparative Study

BACKGROUND: Wearable devices have attracted much attention from the market in recent years for their fitness monitoring and other health-related metrics; however, the accuracy of fitness tracking results still plays a major role in health promotion. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate t...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Xie, Junqing, Wen, Dong, Liang, Lizhong, Jia, Yuxi, Gao, Li, Lei, Jianbo
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: JMIR Publications 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5920198/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29650506
http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/mhealth.9754
_version_ 1783317788057665536
author Xie, Junqing
Wen, Dong
Liang, Lizhong
Jia, Yuxi
Gao, Li
Lei, Jianbo
author_facet Xie, Junqing
Wen, Dong
Liang, Lizhong
Jia, Yuxi
Gao, Li
Lei, Jianbo
author_sort Xie, Junqing
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Wearable devices have attracted much attention from the market in recent years for their fitness monitoring and other health-related metrics; however, the accuracy of fitness tracking results still plays a major role in health promotion. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of a host of latest wearable devices in measuring fitness-related indicators under various seminatural activities. METHODS: A total of 44 healthy subjects were recruited, and each subject was asked to simultaneously wear 6 devices (Apple Watch 2, Samsung Gear S3, Jawbone Up3, Fitbit Surge, Huawei Talk Band B3, and Xiaomi Mi Band 2) and 2 smartphone apps (Dongdong and Ledongli) to measure five major health indicators (heart rate, number of steps, distance, energy consumption, and sleep duration) under various activity states (resting, walking, running, cycling, and sleeping), which were then compared with the gold standard (manual measurements of the heart rate, number of steps, distance, and sleep, and energy consumption through oxygen consumption) and calculated to determine their respective mean absolute percentage errors (MAPEs). RESULTS: Wearable devices had a rather high measurement accuracy with respect to heart rate, number of steps, distance, and sleep duration, with a MAPE of approximately 0.10, whereas poor measurement accuracy was observed for energy consumption (calories), indicated by a MAPE of up to 0.44. The measurements varied for the same indicator measured by different fitness trackers. The variation in measurement of the number of steps was the highest (Apple Watch 2: 0.42; Dongdong: 0.01), whereas it was the lowest for heart rate (Samsung Gear S3: 0.34; Xiaomi Mi Band 2: 0.12). Measurements differed insignificantly for the same indicator measured under different states of activity; the MAPE of distance and energy measurements were in the range of 0.08 to 0.17 and 0.41 to 0.48, respectively. Overall, the Samsung Gear S3 performed the best for the measurement of heart rate under the resting state (MAPE of 0.04), whereas Dongdong performed the best for the measurement of the number of steps under the walking state (MAPE of 0.01). Fitbit Surge performed the best for distance measurement under the cycling state (MAPE of 0.04), and Huawei Talk Band B3 performed the best for energy consumption measurement under the walking state (MAPE of 0.17). CONCLUSIONS: At present, mainstream devices are able to reliably measure heart rate, number of steps, distance, and sleep duration, which can be used as effective health evaluation indicators, but the measurement accuracy of energy consumption is still inadequate. Fitness trackers of different brands vary with regard to measurement of indicators and are all affected by the activity state, which indicates that manufacturers of fitness trackers need to improve their algorithms for different activity states.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5920198
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher JMIR Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-59201982018-05-07 Evaluating the Validity of Current Mainstream Wearable Devices in Fitness Tracking Under Various Physical Activities: Comparative Study Xie, Junqing Wen, Dong Liang, Lizhong Jia, Yuxi Gao, Li Lei, Jianbo JMIR Mhealth Uhealth Original Paper BACKGROUND: Wearable devices have attracted much attention from the market in recent years for their fitness monitoring and other health-related metrics; however, the accuracy of fitness tracking results still plays a major role in health promotion. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of a host of latest wearable devices in measuring fitness-related indicators under various seminatural activities. METHODS: A total of 44 healthy subjects were recruited, and each subject was asked to simultaneously wear 6 devices (Apple Watch 2, Samsung Gear S3, Jawbone Up3, Fitbit Surge, Huawei Talk Band B3, and Xiaomi Mi Band 2) and 2 smartphone apps (Dongdong and Ledongli) to measure five major health indicators (heart rate, number of steps, distance, energy consumption, and sleep duration) under various activity states (resting, walking, running, cycling, and sleeping), which were then compared with the gold standard (manual measurements of the heart rate, number of steps, distance, and sleep, and energy consumption through oxygen consumption) and calculated to determine their respective mean absolute percentage errors (MAPEs). RESULTS: Wearable devices had a rather high measurement accuracy with respect to heart rate, number of steps, distance, and sleep duration, with a MAPE of approximately 0.10, whereas poor measurement accuracy was observed for energy consumption (calories), indicated by a MAPE of up to 0.44. The measurements varied for the same indicator measured by different fitness trackers. The variation in measurement of the number of steps was the highest (Apple Watch 2: 0.42; Dongdong: 0.01), whereas it was the lowest for heart rate (Samsung Gear S3: 0.34; Xiaomi Mi Band 2: 0.12). Measurements differed insignificantly for the same indicator measured under different states of activity; the MAPE of distance and energy measurements were in the range of 0.08 to 0.17 and 0.41 to 0.48, respectively. Overall, the Samsung Gear S3 performed the best for the measurement of heart rate under the resting state (MAPE of 0.04), whereas Dongdong performed the best for the measurement of the number of steps under the walking state (MAPE of 0.01). Fitbit Surge performed the best for distance measurement under the cycling state (MAPE of 0.04), and Huawei Talk Band B3 performed the best for energy consumption measurement under the walking state (MAPE of 0.17). CONCLUSIONS: At present, mainstream devices are able to reliably measure heart rate, number of steps, distance, and sleep duration, which can be used as effective health evaluation indicators, but the measurement accuracy of energy consumption is still inadequate. Fitness trackers of different brands vary with regard to measurement of indicators and are all affected by the activity state, which indicates that manufacturers of fitness trackers need to improve their algorithms for different activity states. JMIR Publications 2018-04-12 /pmc/articles/PMC5920198/ /pubmed/29650506 http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/mhealth.9754 Text en ©Junqing Xie, Dong Wen, Lizhong Liang, Yuxi Jia, Li Gao, Jianbo Lei. Originally published in JMIR Mhealth and Uhealth (http://mhealth.jmir.org), 12.04.2018. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in JMIR mhealth and uhealth, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on http://mhealth.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.
spellingShingle Original Paper
Xie, Junqing
Wen, Dong
Liang, Lizhong
Jia, Yuxi
Gao, Li
Lei, Jianbo
Evaluating the Validity of Current Mainstream Wearable Devices in Fitness Tracking Under Various Physical Activities: Comparative Study
title Evaluating the Validity of Current Mainstream Wearable Devices in Fitness Tracking Under Various Physical Activities: Comparative Study
title_full Evaluating the Validity of Current Mainstream Wearable Devices in Fitness Tracking Under Various Physical Activities: Comparative Study
title_fullStr Evaluating the Validity of Current Mainstream Wearable Devices in Fitness Tracking Under Various Physical Activities: Comparative Study
title_full_unstemmed Evaluating the Validity of Current Mainstream Wearable Devices in Fitness Tracking Under Various Physical Activities: Comparative Study
title_short Evaluating the Validity of Current Mainstream Wearable Devices in Fitness Tracking Under Various Physical Activities: Comparative Study
title_sort evaluating the validity of current mainstream wearable devices in fitness tracking under various physical activities: comparative study
topic Original Paper
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5920198/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29650506
http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/mhealth.9754
work_keys_str_mv AT xiejunqing evaluatingthevalidityofcurrentmainstreamwearabledevicesinfitnesstrackingundervariousphysicalactivitiescomparativestudy
AT wendong evaluatingthevalidityofcurrentmainstreamwearabledevicesinfitnesstrackingundervariousphysicalactivitiescomparativestudy
AT lianglizhong evaluatingthevalidityofcurrentmainstreamwearabledevicesinfitnesstrackingundervariousphysicalactivitiescomparativestudy
AT jiayuxi evaluatingthevalidityofcurrentmainstreamwearabledevicesinfitnesstrackingundervariousphysicalactivitiescomparativestudy
AT gaoli evaluatingthevalidityofcurrentmainstreamwearabledevicesinfitnesstrackingundervariousphysicalactivitiescomparativestudy
AT leijianbo evaluatingthevalidityofcurrentmainstreamwearabledevicesinfitnesstrackingundervariousphysicalactivitiescomparativestudy