Cited by 112Context-Aware Activity Recognition SystemsPhysical Activity and HealthBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention

Performance of activity classification algorithms in free-living older adults

Open access
SASAKI, JEFFER EIDI, HICKEY, AMANDA M., STAUDENMAYER, JOHN W., JOHN, DINESH, KENT, JANE A., FREEDSON, PATTY S.·2016·Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise

Abstract

PURPOSE: The objective of this study is to compare activity type classification rates of machine learning algorithms trained on laboratory versus free-living accelerometer data in older adults. METHODS: Thirty-five older adults (21 females and 14 males, 70.8 ± 4.9 yr) performed selected activities in the laboratory while wearing three ActiGraph GT3X+ activity monitors (in the dominant hip, wrist, and ankle; ActiGraph, LLC, Pensacola, FL). Monitors were initialized to collect raw acceleration data at a sampling rate of 80 Hz. Fifteen of the participants also wore GT3X+ in free-living settings and were directly observed for 2-3 h. Time- and frequency-domain features from acceleration signals of each monitor were used to train random forest (RF) and support vector machine (SVM) models to classify five activity types: sedentary, standing, household, locomotion, and recreational activities. All algorithms were trained on laboratory data (RFLab and SVMLab) and free-living data (RFFL and SVMFL) using 20-s signal sampling windows. Classification accuracy rates of both types of algorithms were tested on free-living data using a leave-one-out technique. RESULTS: Overall classification accuracy rates for the algorithms developed from laboratory data were between 49% (wrist) and 55% (ankle) for the SVMLab algorithms and 49% (wrist) to 54% (ankle) for the RFLab algorithms. The classification accuracy rates for SVMFL and RFFL algorithms ranged from 58% (wrist) to 69% (ankle) and from 61% (wrist) to 67% (ankle), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our algorithms developed on free-living accelerometer data were more accurate in classifying the activity type in free-living older adults than those on our algorithms developed on laboratory accelerometer data. Future studies should consider using free-living accelerometer data to train machine learning algorithms in older adults.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1249/mss.0000000000000844

Cites

18 of 18 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Much work has been done on using wearable sensor data features to identify daily functional activities in unsupervised conditions using simple wearable technology.

    “Much work has been done on using wearable sensor data features to identify daily functional activities in unsupervised conditions using simple wearable technology [e.g., Ref. (101, 102)].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
SASAKI, J. E., HICKEY, A. M., STAUDENMAYER, J. W., JOHN, D., KENT, J. A., & FREEDSON, P. S.
Affiliations
Northeastern University (US)
Venue
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise
Published
2016-05
Volume
48
Issue
5
Pages
941-950
ISSN
0195-9131 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2200539030
Cited by
112
References
18
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 3
FWCI
8.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Cancer Institute (R01CA121005)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Context-Aware Activity Recognition Systems
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Physical Activity and Health
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Balance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
Keywords
activity classification, older adults, wearable accelerometers, ActiGraph GT3X+, random forest, support vector machine, sedentary behavior, housework, locomotion, recreational activities, activity monitoring
MeSH terms
Activities of Daily Living, Aged, Algorithms, Ankle, Female, Hip, Humans, Male, Wrist, Monitoring, Ambulatory, Support Vector Machine, 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