Intensity thresholds on raw acceleration data: Euclidean norm minus one (ENMO) and mean amplitude deviation (MAD) approaches

104Citations
Citations of this article
199Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Objectives (1) To develop and internally-validate Euclidean Norm Minus One (ENMO) and Mean Amplitude Deviation (MAD) thresholds for separating sedentary behaviours from common light-intensity physical activities using raw acceleration data collected from both hip-and wrist-worn tri-axial accelerometers; and (2) to compare and evaluate the performances between the ENMO and MAD metrics. Methods Thirty-three adults [mean age (standard deviation (SD)) = 27.4 (5.9) years; mean BMI (SD) = 23.9 (3.7) kg/m2; 20 females (60.6%)] wore four accelerometers; an ActiGraph GT3X+ and a GENEActiv on the right hip; and an ActiGraph GT3X+ and a GENEActiv on the nondominant wrist. Under laboratory-conditions, participants performed 16 different activities (11 sedentary behaviours and 5 light-intensity physical activities) for 5 minutes each. ENMO and MAD were computed from the raw acceleration data, and logistic regression and receiver-operating-characteristic (ROC) analyses were implemented to derive thresholds for activity discrimination. Areas under ROC curves (AUROC) were calculated to summarise performances and thresholds were assessed via executing leave-one-out-crossvalidations. Results For both hip and wrist monitor placements, in comparison to the ActiGraph GT3X+ monitors, the ENMO and MAD values derived from the GENEActiv devices were observed to be slightly higher, particularly for the lower-intensity activities. Monitor-specific hip and wrist ENMO and MAD thresholds showed excellent ability for separating sedentary behaviours from motion-based light-intensity physical activities (in general, AUROCs >0.95), with validation indicating robustness. However, poor classification was experienced when attempting to isolate standing still from sedentary behaviours (in general, AUROCs <0.65). The ENMO and MAD metrics tended to perform similarly across activities and accelerometer brands. Conclusions Researchers can utilise these robust monitor-specific hip and wrist ENMO and MAD thresholds, in order to accurately separate sedentary behaviours from common motion-based light-intensity physical activities. However, caution should be taken if isolating sedentary behaviours from standing is of particular interest.

References Powered by Scopus

Sedentary time and its association with risk for disease incidence, mortality, and hospitalization in adults a systematic review and meta-analysis

2081Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Letter to the editor: Standardized use of the terms "sedentary" and "sedentary behaviours"

1549Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Sedentary time in adults and the association with diabetes, cardiovascular disease and death: Systematic review and meta-analysis

1336Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Beyond Cut Points: Accelerometer Metrics that Capture the Physical Activity Profile

138Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Accelerometer-assessed physical activity in epidemiology: Are monitors equivalent?

134Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Reliable recognition of lying, sitting, and standing with a hip-worn accelerometer

113Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Bakrania, K., Yates, T., Rowlands, A. V., Esliger, D. W., Bunnewell, S., Sanders, J., … Edwardson, C. L. (2016). Intensity thresholds on raw acceleration data: Euclidean norm minus one (ENMO) and mean amplitude deviation (MAD) approaches. PLoS ONE, 11(10). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0164045

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 86

68%

Researcher 29

23%

Professor / Associate Prof. 8

6%

Lecturer / Post doc 3

2%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Medicine and Dentistry 33

34%

Sports and Recreations 30

31%

Engineering 22

22%

Computer Science 13

13%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free