Dalarna University's logo and link to the university's website

du.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • chicago-author-date
  • chicago-note-bibliography
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Where to Place Which Sensor to Measure Sedentary Behavior?: A Method Development and Comparison Among Various Sensor Placements and Signal Types
Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm.ORCID iD: 0000-0002-1697-9781
2020 (English)In: Journal for the Measurement of Physical Behaviour, ISSN 2575-6605, Vol. 3, no 4, p. 274-284Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Background: Sedentary behavior (SB) is associated with several chronic diseases and office workers especially are at increased risk. SB is defined by a sitting or reclined body posture with an energy expenditure of ≤1.5 metabolic equivalents. However, current objective methods to measure SB are not consistent with its definition. There is no consensus on which sensor placement and type should be used. Aim: To compare the accuracy of newly developed artificial intelligence models for 15 sensor placements in combination with four signal types (accelerometer only/plus gyroscope and/or magnetometer) to detect posture and physical in-/activity during desk-based activities. Method: Signal features for the model development were extracted from sensor raw data of 30 office workers performing 10 desk-based tasks, each lasting 5 min. Direct observation (posture) and indirect calorimetry (in-/activity) served as the reference criteria. The best classification model for each sensor was identified and compared among the sensor placements, both using Friedman and post hoc Wilcoxon tests (p ≤.05). Results: Posture was most accurately measured with a lower body sensor, while in-/activity was most accurately measured with an upper body or waist sensor. The inclusion of additional signal types improved the posture classification for some placements, while the acceleration signal already contained the relevant signal information for the in-/activity classification. Overall, the thigh accelerometer most accurately classified desk-based SB. Conclusion: This study favors, in line with previous work, the measurement of SB with a thigh-worn accelerometer and adds the information that this sensor is also accurate in measuring physical in-/activity while sitting and standing. © 2020 Human Kinetics, Inc.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Human Kinetics Publishers Inc. , 2020. Vol. 3, no 4, p. 274-284
National Category
Clinical Medicine
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:du-51789DOI: 10.1123/jmpb.2019-0060Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-85101034003OAI: oai:DiVA.org:du-51789DiVA, id: diva2:2014113
Available from: 2025-11-17 Created: 2025-11-17 Last updated: 2025-11-17Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textScopus

Authority records

Grooten, Wim

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Grooten, Wim
Clinical Medicine

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 8 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • chicago-author-date
  • chicago-note-bibliography
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf