Comparison of Step Outputs for Waist and Wrist Accelerometer Attachment Sites
Abstract
PURPOSE: The objective of this study is to compare step outputs obtained from waist and wrist accelerometer attachment sites under laboratory and free-living conditions. METHODS: Under the laboratory condition, participants concurrently wore ActiGraph accelerometers at their waist and nondominant wrist while walking/running at treadmill speeds between 14 and 188 m·min. Visually counted steps served as a criterion standard. Participants then wore both accelerometers for 7 d. All accelerometer step data were processed applying both the manufacturer's default and low-frequency extension filters. Paired sample t-tests were used to evaluate mean differences in criterion steps per minute and the four (attachment site × filter) estimates produced from the waist- and wrist-worn accelerometers in the laboratory study. Free-living differences in mean steps per day detected between the waist and wrist (considering both filters) were computed. RESULTS: Relative to visually counted steps, the waist attachment site generally outperformed the wrist attachment site at most speeds, regardless of the applied filtering process. Under free-living conditions, the waist-worn accelerometer detected 6743 ± 2398 (default filter) and 13,029 ± 3734 (low-frequency extension) steps per day. The concurrently worn wrist accelerometer detected 9301 ± 2887 (default filter) and 15,493 ± 3958 (low-frequency extension) steps per day. CONCLUSION: The wrist attachment site detected consistently fewer visually counted steps than the waist attachment site at most treadmill speeds during laboratory testing. In contrast, the wrist attachment site produced a higher average step count (ranging from approximately 2500 to 8700 more steps per day under free-living conditions, dependent on the filtering process applied) than the waist attachment site under free-living conditions. In conclusion, step outputs obtained from waist- and wrist-worn accelerometer attachment sites are generally not comparable under either laboratory or free-living conditions.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the free-living environment, the wrist recorded more steps than the waist, likely due to extraneous arm movements.
“However, in the free-living environment the wrist recorded more steps than the waist, likely due to extraneous arm movements.”
From Step Counting: A Review of Measurement Considerations and Health-Related Applications (2017) · cites this paper as [31]
In the free-living environment, the waist-worn ActiGraph measured 6743 ± 2398 (default filter) and 13,029 ± 3734 (low-frequency extension) steps per day; the wrist ActiGraph measured 9301 ± 2887 and 15,493 ± 3958 steps per day.
“In the free-living environment, the waist-worn ActiGraph measured 6743 ± 2398 (default filter) and 13,029 ± 3734 (low-frequency extension) steps per day. The wrist ActiGraph measured 9301 ± 2887 (default filter) and 15,493 ± 3958 (low-frequency extension) steps per day.”
From Step Counting: A Review of Measurement Considerations and Health-Related Applications (2017) · cites this paper as [31]
The step detection algorithm developed for the waist does not seem to work for the wrist location.
“Unfortunately, the step detection algorithm developed for the waist does not seem to work for the wrist location.”
From Step Counting: A Review of Measurement Considerations and Health-Related Applications (2017) · cites this paper as [31]
Compared to directly observed steps, the waist site performed better than the wrist site at most treadmill speeds, regardless of the bandpass filter.
“Compared to directly observed steps, the waist site performed better than the wrist site at most treadmill speeds, regardless of the bandpass filter.”
From Step Counting: A Review of Measurement Considerations and Health-Related Applications (2017) · cites this paper as [31]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 4 · Cited by 218
- Authors
- TUDOR-LOCKE, C., BARREIRA, T. V., & SCHUNA, J. M.
- Affiliations
- Pennington Biomedical Research Center (US)
- Venue
- Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise
- Published
- 2015-04
- Volume
- 47
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 839-842
- ISSN
- 0195-9131 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2058027663
- Cited by
- 218
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 36 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 35 · 2018: 22 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 8
- FWCI
- 8.20
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- 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
- waist-worn accelerometers, wrist-worn accelerometers, step count, ActiGraph, treadmill walking and running, step count accuracy
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Energy Metabolism, Female, Humans, Male, Motor Activity, Running, Wrist, Walking, Torso, Accelerometry
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