CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 139Physical Activity and HealthContext-Aware Activity Recognition SystemsBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention

Comparison of two waist-mounted and two ankle-mounted electronic pedometers

Karabulut, Murat, Crouter, Scott E., Bassett, David R.·2005·European Journal of Applied Physiology
DOI 10.1007/s00421-005-0018-3
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This study compared two ankle-mounted pedometers [StepWatch 3 (SW-3(Ankle)) and Activity Monitoring Pod 331 (AMP(Ankle))] and two waist-mounted pedometers [New Lifestyles NL-2000 (NL(Waist)) and Digiwalker SW-701 (SW-701(Waist))] under controlled and free-living conditions. In part I, 20 participants walked on a treadmill at speeds of 27-107 m min(-1). Actual steps were counted with a hand counter. In part II, participants performed leg swinging, heel tapping, stationary cycling, and car driving. In part III, 15 participants wore all pedometers for a 24 h period. The SW-3(Ankle) displayed values that were within 1% of actual steps during treadmill walking at all speeds. The other devices underestimated steps at slow speeds but all gave mean values that were within +/-3% of actual steps at 80 m min(-1) and above. The SW-3(Ankle) registered some steps during heel tapping, leg swinging, and cycling, while the AMP(Ankle) was only responsive to leg swinging. During car driving no devices recorded more than eight steps, on average. Over 24 h, the AMP(Ankle) recorded 18% fewer steps than the SW-3(Ankle) (P<0.05), while the SW-701(Waist) and the NL(Waist) recorded 15 and 11% less than the SW-3(Ankle), respectively (NSD). The SW-3(Ankle) has superior accuracy at slow treadmill walking speeds (although it was also more likely to detect "fidgeting" activities). Over 24 h, the SW-3(Ankle) tended to give higher estimates of steps per day than the other ankle- and waist-mounted pedometers.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00421-005-0018-3

Cites

36 of 36 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Karabulut, M., Crouter, S. E., & Bassett, D. R.
Affiliations
  • University of Oklahoma (US)
  • University of Tennessee at Knoxville (US)
Corresponding author
Crouter, Scott E.
ORCID
Venue
European Journal of Applied Physiology
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2005-08-13
Volume
95
Issue
4
Pages
335-343
ISSN
  • 0020-9376 (ISSN-L)
  • 1439-6319
  • 1439-6327
DOI
10.1007/s00421-005-0018-3
OpenAlex
W2016139009
Cited by
139
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 20
FWCI
3.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
Locations
  • European Journal of Applied Physiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ScholarWorks @ UTRGV (The University of Texas Rio Grande Valley) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Physical Activity and Health
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Context-Aware Activity Recognition Systems
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Balance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
Keywords
pedometers, step count accuracy, fidgeting, stationary cycling, driving
MeSH terms
Adult, Analysis of Variance, Ankle, Anthropometry, Electronics, Medical, Female, Humans, Male, Sensitivity and Specificity, Reproducibility of Results, Exercise, Walking, Ergometry, Sports Equipment

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review