Next Article in Journal
Monitoring of Epoxy-Grouted Bonding Strength Development between an Anchored Steel Bar and Concrete Using PZT-Enabled Active Sensing
Next Article in Special Issue
Real-Time Drink Trigger Detection in Free-living Conditions Using Inertial Sensors
Previous Article in Journal
Vision-Based Traffic Sign Detection and Recognition Systems: Current Trends and Challenges
Previous Article in Special Issue
Hidden Markov Model-Based Smart Annotation for Benchmark Cyclic Activity Recognition Database Using Wearables
Open AccessArticle

On Placement, Location and Orientation of Wrist-Worn Tri-Axial Accelerometers during Free-Living Measurements

Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health-Bloomington, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405, USA
Center for Aging and Population Health, Department of Epidemiology, Graduate School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sensors 2019, 19(9), 2095;
Received: 12 March 2019 / Revised: 28 April 2019 / Accepted: 1 May 2019 / Published: 6 May 2019
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Inertial Sensors for Activity Recognition and Classification)
Wearable accelerometers have recently become a standalone tool for the objective assessment of physical activity (PA). In free-living studies, accelerometers are placed by protocol on a pre-defined body location (e.g., non-dominant wrist). However, the protocol is not always followed, e.g., the sensor can be moved between wrists or reattached in a different orientation. Such protocol violations often result in PA miscalculation. We propose an approach, PLOE (“Placement, Location and Orientation Evaluation method”), to determine the sensor position using statistical features from the raw accelerometer measurements. We compare the estimated position with the study protocol and identify discrepancies. We apply PLOE to the measurements collected from 45 older adults who wore ActiGraph GT3X+ accelerometers on the left and right wrist for seven days. We found that 15.6% of participants who wore accelerometers violated the protocol for one or more days. The sensors were worn on the wrong hand during 6.9% of the days of simultaneous wearing of devices. During the periods of discrepancies, the daily PA was miscalculated by more than 20%. Our findings show that correct placement of the device has a significant effect on the PA estimates. These results demonstrate a need for the evaluation of sensor position. View Full-Text
Keywords: wearable computing; sensor position; physical activity; ActiGraph GT3X+ wearable computing; sensor position; physical activity; ActiGraph GT3X+
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Straczkiewicz, M.; Glynn, N.W.; Harezlak, J. On Placement, Location and Orientation of Wrist-Worn Tri-Axial Accelerometers during Free-Living Measurements. Sensors 2019, 19, 2095.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

Back to TopTop