PLoS ONE (Jan 2024)

Comparison of raw accelerometry data from ActiGraph, Apple Watch, Garmin, and Fitbit using a mechanical shaker table.

  • James W White,
  • Olivia L Finnegan,
  • Nick Tindall,
  • Srihari Nelakuditi,
  • David E Brown,
  • Russell R Pate,
  • Gregory J Welk,
  • Massimiliano de Zambotti,
  • Rahul Ghosal,
  • Yuan Wang,
  • Sarah Burkart,
  • Elizabeth L Adams,
  • Mvs Chandrashekhar,
  • Bridget Armstrong,
  • Michael W Beets,
  • R Glenn Weaver

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0286898
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 19, no. 3
p. e0286898

Abstract

Read online

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the reliability and validity of the raw accelerometry output from research-grade and consumer wearable devices compared to accelerations produced by a mechanical shaker table. Raw accelerometry data from a total of 40 devices (i.e., n = 10 ActiGraph wGT3X-BT, n = 10 Apple Watch Series 7, n = 10 Garmin Vivoactive 4S, and n = 10 Fitbit Sense) were compared to reference accelerations produced by an orbital shaker table at speeds ranging from 0.6 Hz (4.4 milligravity-mg) to 3.2 Hz (124.7mg). Two-way random effects absolute intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) tested inter-device reliability. Pearson product moment, Lin's concordance correlation coefficient (CCC), absolute error, mean bias, and equivalence testing were calculated to assess the validity between the raw estimates from the devices and the reference metric. Estimates from Apple, ActiGraph, Garmin, and Fitbit were reliable, with ICCs = 0.99, 0.97, 0.88, and 0.88, respectively. Estimates from ActiGraph, Apple, and Fitbit devices exhibited excellent concordance with the reference CCCs = 0.88, 0.83, and 0.85, respectively, while estimates from Garmin exhibited moderate concordance CCC = 0.59 based on the mean aggregation method. ActiGraph, Apple, and Fitbit produced similar absolute errors = 16.9mg, 21.6mg, and 22.0mg, respectively, while Garmin produced higher absolute error = 32.5mg compared to the reference. ActiGraph produced the lowest mean bias 0.0mg (95%CI = -40.0, 41.0). Equivalence testing revealed raw accelerometry data from all devices were not statistically significantly within the equivalence bounds of the shaker speed. Findings from this study provide evidence that raw accelerometry data from Apple, Garmin, and Fitbit devices can be used to reliably estimate movement; however, no estimates were statistically significantly equivalent to the reference. Future studies could explore device-agnostic and harmonization methods for estimating physical activity using the raw accelerometry signals from the consumer wearables studied herein.