Accuracy of three Android-based pedometer applications in laboratory and free-living settings

Jia Yan Leong, Jyh Eiin Wong

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

9 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

This study examines the accuracy of three popular, free Android-based pedometer applications (apps), namely, Runtastic (RT), Pacer Works (PW), and Tayutau (TY) in laboratory and free-living settings. Forty-eight adults (22.5 ± 1.4 years) completed 3-min bouts of treadmill walking at five incremental speeds while carrying a test smartphone installed with the three apps. Experiment was repeated thrice, with the smartphone placed either in the pants pockets, at waist level, or secured to the left arm by an armband. The actual step count was manually counted by a tally counter. In the free-living setting, each of the 44 participants (21.9 ± 1.6 years) carried a smartphone with installed apps and a reference pedometer (Yamax Digi-Walker CW700) for 7 consecutive days. Results showed that TY produced the lowest mean absolute percent error (APE 6.7%) and was the only app with acceptable accuracy in counting steps in a laboratory setting. RT consistently underestimated steps with APE of 16.8% in the laboratory. PW significantly underestimated steps when the smartphone was secured to the arm, but overestimated under other conditions (APE 19.7%). TY was the most accurate app in counting steps in a laboratory setting with the lowest APE of 6.7%. In the free-living setting, the APE relative to the reference pedometer was 16.6%, 18.0%, and 16.8% for RT, PW, and TY, respectively. None of the three apps counted steps accurately in the free-living setting.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1-8
Number of pages8
JournalJournal of Sports Sciences
DOIs
Publication statusAccepted/In press - 7 Mar 2016

Fingerprint

Walkers
Walking
Smartphone

Keywords

  • Android applications
  • counting steps
  • Pedometer
  • physical activity

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Orthopedics and Sports Medicine
  • Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation

Cite this

Accuracy of three Android-based pedometer applications in laboratory and free-living settings. / Leong, Jia Yan; Wong, Jyh Eiin.

In: Journal of Sports Sciences, 07.03.2016, p. 1-8.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{6a743e6fb24f460fa56eb97e9841fe74,
title = "Accuracy of three Android-based pedometer applications in laboratory and free-living settings",
abstract = "This study examines the accuracy of three popular, free Android-based pedometer applications (apps), namely, Runtastic (RT), Pacer Works (PW), and Tayutau (TY) in laboratory and free-living settings. Forty-eight adults (22.5 ± 1.4 years) completed 3-min bouts of treadmill walking at five incremental speeds while carrying a test smartphone installed with the three apps. Experiment was repeated thrice, with the smartphone placed either in the pants pockets, at waist level, or secured to the left arm by an armband. The actual step count was manually counted by a tally counter. In the free-living setting, each of the 44 participants (21.9 ± 1.6 years) carried a smartphone with installed apps and a reference pedometer (Yamax Digi-Walker CW700) for 7 consecutive days. Results showed that TY produced the lowest mean absolute percent error (APE 6.7{\%}) and was the only app with acceptable accuracy in counting steps in a laboratory setting. RT consistently underestimated steps with APE of 16.8{\%} in the laboratory. PW significantly underestimated steps when the smartphone was secured to the arm, but overestimated under other conditions (APE 19.7{\%}). TY was the most accurate app in counting steps in a laboratory setting with the lowest APE of 6.7{\%}. In the free-living setting, the APE relative to the reference pedometer was 16.6{\%}, 18.0{\%}, and 16.8{\%} for RT, PW, and TY, respectively. None of the three apps counted steps accurately in the free-living setting.",
keywords = "Android applications, counting steps, Pedometer, physical activity",
author = "Leong, {Jia Yan} and Wong, {Jyh Eiin}",
year = "2016",
month = "3",
day = "7",
doi = "10.1080/02640414.2016.1154592",
language = "English",
pages = "1--8",
journal = "Journal of Sports Sciences",
issn = "0264-0414",
publisher = "Routledge",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Accuracy of three Android-based pedometer applications in laboratory and free-living settings

AU - Leong, Jia Yan

AU - Wong, Jyh Eiin

PY - 2016/3/7

Y1 - 2016/3/7

N2 - This study examines the accuracy of three popular, free Android-based pedometer applications (apps), namely, Runtastic (RT), Pacer Works (PW), and Tayutau (TY) in laboratory and free-living settings. Forty-eight adults (22.5 ± 1.4 years) completed 3-min bouts of treadmill walking at five incremental speeds while carrying a test smartphone installed with the three apps. Experiment was repeated thrice, with the smartphone placed either in the pants pockets, at waist level, or secured to the left arm by an armband. The actual step count was manually counted by a tally counter. In the free-living setting, each of the 44 participants (21.9 ± 1.6 years) carried a smartphone with installed apps and a reference pedometer (Yamax Digi-Walker CW700) for 7 consecutive days. Results showed that TY produced the lowest mean absolute percent error (APE 6.7%) and was the only app with acceptable accuracy in counting steps in a laboratory setting. RT consistently underestimated steps with APE of 16.8% in the laboratory. PW significantly underestimated steps when the smartphone was secured to the arm, but overestimated under other conditions (APE 19.7%). TY was the most accurate app in counting steps in a laboratory setting with the lowest APE of 6.7%. In the free-living setting, the APE relative to the reference pedometer was 16.6%, 18.0%, and 16.8% for RT, PW, and TY, respectively. None of the three apps counted steps accurately in the free-living setting.

AB - This study examines the accuracy of three popular, free Android-based pedometer applications (apps), namely, Runtastic (RT), Pacer Works (PW), and Tayutau (TY) in laboratory and free-living settings. Forty-eight adults (22.5 ± 1.4 years) completed 3-min bouts of treadmill walking at five incremental speeds while carrying a test smartphone installed with the three apps. Experiment was repeated thrice, with the smartphone placed either in the pants pockets, at waist level, or secured to the left arm by an armband. The actual step count was manually counted by a tally counter. In the free-living setting, each of the 44 participants (21.9 ± 1.6 years) carried a smartphone with installed apps and a reference pedometer (Yamax Digi-Walker CW700) for 7 consecutive days. Results showed that TY produced the lowest mean absolute percent error (APE 6.7%) and was the only app with acceptable accuracy in counting steps in a laboratory setting. RT consistently underestimated steps with APE of 16.8% in the laboratory. PW significantly underestimated steps when the smartphone was secured to the arm, but overestimated under other conditions (APE 19.7%). TY was the most accurate app in counting steps in a laboratory setting with the lowest APE of 6.7%. In the free-living setting, the APE relative to the reference pedometer was 16.6%, 18.0%, and 16.8% for RT, PW, and TY, respectively. None of the three apps counted steps accurately in the free-living setting.

KW - Android applications

KW - counting steps

KW - Pedometer

KW - physical activity

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84961205218&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84961205218&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/02640414.2016.1154592

DO - 10.1080/02640414.2016.1154592

M3 - Article

SP - 1

EP - 8

JO - Journal of Sports Sciences

JF - Journal of Sports Sciences

SN - 0264-0414

ER -