Evaluating the Validity of Current Mainstream Wearable Devices in Fitness Tracking Under Various Physical Activities: Comparative Study
Preprint
- 23 January 2018
- preprint
- Published by JMIR Publications Inc.
Abstract
Journal of Medical Internet Research - International Scientific Journal for Medical Research, Information and Communication on the Internet #Preprint #PeerReviewMe: Warning: This is a unreviewed preprint. Readers are warned that the document has not been peer-reviewed by expert/patient reviewers or an academic editor, may contain misleading claims, and is likely to undergo changes before final publication, if accepted, or may have been rejected/withdrawn. Readers with interest and expertise are encouraged to sign up as peer-reviewer, if the paper is within an open peer-review period. Please cite this preprint only for review purposes or for grant applications and CVs (if you are the author). Background: Wearable devices have attracted much attention from the market in recent years for their fitness monitoring and other health-related metrics; however, the accuracy of fitness tracking results still plays a major role in health promotion. Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of a host of latest wearable devices in measuring fitness-related indicators under various seminatural activities. Methods: A total of 44 healthy subjects were recruited, and each subject was asked to simultaneously wear 6 devices (Apple Watch 2, Samsung Gear S3, Jawbone Up3, Fitbit Surge, Huawei Talk Band B3, and Xiaomi Mi Band 2) and 2 smartphone apps (Dongdong and Ledongli) to measure five major health indicators (heart rate, number of steps, distance, energy consumption, and sleep duration) under various activity states (resting, walking, running, cycling, and sleeping), which were then compared with the gold standard (manual measurements of the heart rate, number of steps, distance, and sleep, and energy consumption through oxygen consumption) and calculated to determine their respective mean absolute percentage errors (MAPEs). Results: Wearable devices had a rather high measurement accuracy with respect to heart rate, number of steps, distance, and sleep duration, with a MAPE of approximately 0.10, whereas poor measurement accuracy was observed for energy consumption (calories), indicated by a MAPE of up to 0.44. The measurements varied for the same indicator measured by different fitness trackers. The variation in measurement of the number of steps was the highest (Apple Watch 2: 0.42; Dongdong: 0.01), whereas it was the lowest for heart rate (Samsung Gear S3: 0.34; Xiaomi Mi Band 2: 0.12). Measurements differed insignificantly for the same indicator measured under different states of activity; the MAPE of distance and energy measurements were in the range of 0.08 to 0.17 and 0.41 to 0.48, respectively. Overall, the Samsung Gear S3 performed the best for the measurement of heart rate under the resting state (MAPE of 0.04), whereas Dongdong performed the best for the measurement of the number of steps under the walking state (MAPE of 0.01). Fitbit Surge performed the best for distance measurement under the cycling state (MAPE of 0.04), and Huawei Talk Band B3 performed the best for energy consumption measurement under the walking state (MAPE of 0.17). Conclusions: At present, mainstream devices are able to reliably measure heart rate, number of steps, distance, and sleep duration, which can be used as effective health evaluation indicators, but the measurement accuracy of energy consumption is still inadequate. Fitness trackers of different brands vary with regard to measurement of indicators and are all affected by the activity state, which indicates that manufacturers of fitness trackers need to improve their algorithms for different activity states.Keywords
Other Versions
- Published version: Version JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 6, preprints
This publication has 17 references indexed in Scilit:
- Systematic review of the effectiveness of health-related behavioral interventions using portable activity sensing devices (PASDs)Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 2017
- How valid are wearable physical activity trackers for measuring steps?European Journal of Sport Science, 2016
- Can a Free Wearable Activity Tracker Change Behavior? The Impact of Trackers on Adults in a Physician-Led Wellness GroupJMIR Research Protocols, 2016
- Validity of Consumer-Based Physical Activity Monitors for Specific Activity TypesMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 2016
- How accurate are the wrist-based heart rate monitors during walking and running activities? Are they accurate enough?BMJ Open Sport & Exercise Medicine, 2016
- Comparison of Consumer and Research Monitors under Semistructured SettingsMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 2016
- Systematic review of the validity and reliability of consumer-wearable activity trackersInternational Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 2015
- Opportunities and challenges in the use of personal health data for health researchJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 2015
- Validation of the Fitbit One activity monitor device during treadmill walkingJournal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 2014
- The validation of Fitbit Zip™ physical activity monitor as a measure of free-living physical activityBMC Research Notes, 2014