Change search
ReferencesLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Separating Movement and Gravity Components in an Acceleration Signal and Implications for the Assessment of Human Daily Physical Activity
Show others and affiliations
2013 (English)In: PLoS ONE, ISSN 1932-6203, E-ISSN 1932-6203, Vol. 8, no 4, e61691- p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Introduction: Human body acceleration is often used as an indicator of daily physical activity in epidemiological research. Raw acceleration signals contain three basic components: movement, gravity, and noise. Separation of these becomes increasingly difficult during rotational movements. We aimed to evaluate five different methods (metrics) of processing acceleration signals on their ability to remove the gravitational component of acceleration during standardised mechanical movements and the implications for human daily physical activity assessment. Methods: An industrial robot rotated accelerometers in the vertical plane. Radius, frequency, and angular range of motion were systematically varied. Three metrics (Euclidian norm minus one [ENMO], Euclidian norm of the high-pass filtered signals [HFEN], and HFEN plus Euclidean norm of low-pass filtered signals minus 1 g [HFEN+]) were derived for each experimental condition and compared against the reference acceleration (forward kinematics) of the robot arm. We then compared metrics derived from human acceleration signals from the wrist and hip in 97 adults (22-65 yr), and wrist in 63 women (20-35 yr) in whom daily activity-related energy expenditure (PAEE) was available. Results: In the robot experiment, HFEN+ had lowest error during (vertical plane) rotations at an oscillating frequency higher than the filter cut-off frequency while for lower frequencies ENMO performed better. In the human experiments, metrics HFEN and ENMO on hip were most discrepant (within- and between-individual explained variance of 0.90 and 0.46, respectively). ENMO, HFEN and HFEN+ explained 34%, 30% and 36% of the variance in daily PAEE, respectively, compared to 26% for a metric which did not attempt to remove the gravitational component (metric EN). Conclusion: In conclusion, none of the metrics as evaluated systematically outperformed all other metrics across a wide range of standardised kinematic conditions. However, choice of metric explains different degrees of variance in daily human physical activity.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2013. Vol. 8, no 4, e61691- p.
National Category
Medical and Health Sciences
URN: urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-71618DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0061691ISI: 000318008400082OAI: diva2:625405
Available from: 2013-06-04 Created: 2013-06-04 Last updated: 2015-12-16Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

fulltext(684 kB)113 downloads
File information
File name FULLTEXT02.pdfFile size 684 kBChecksum SHA-512
Type fulltextMimetype application/pdf

Other links

Publisher's full text

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Renström, FridaFranks, Paul W.
By organisation
In the same journal
Medical and Health Sciences

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
Total: 113 downloads
The number of downloads is the sum of all downloads of full texts. It may include eg previous versions that are now no longer available

Altmetric score

Total: 70 hits
ReferencesLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link