Get access

Head-to-head comparison between Actigraph 7164 and GT1M accelerometers in adolescents

Authors

  • Tina Tanha,

    Corresponding author
    • Department of Clinical Sciences, Unit of Clinical Physiology and Nuclear Medicine, Skåne University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Åsa B. Tornberg,

    1. Department of Clinical Sciences, Unit of Clinical Physiology and Nuclear Medicine, Skåne University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden
    2. Division of Physiotherapy, Department of Health Sciences, Lund University, Lund, Sweden
    3. Department of Clinical Sciences, Genetic and Molecular Epidemiology Unit, Lund University Diabetes Center, Skåne University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Per Wollmer,

    1. Department of Clinical Sciences, Unit of Clinical Physiology and Nuclear Medicine, Skåne University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Magnus Dencker

    1. Department of Clinical Sciences, Unit of Clinical Physiology and Nuclear Medicine, Skåne University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden
    Search for more papers by this author

Correspondence

Tina Tanha, Department of Clinical Sciences, Malmö Clinical Physiology and Nuclear Medicine unit, Skåne University Hospital, 205 02 Malmö, Sweden

E-mail: tina.tanha@skane.se

Summary

We compared, head-to-head, the old generation Actigraph model 7164 with the new generation Actigraph GT1M accelerometer. A total of 15 randomly selected teenagers (eight girls and seven boys) were investigated. They performed a treadmill test wearing the two kinds of accelerometers around the waist simultaneously. The treadmill test consisted of three different levels of speed 4, 6 and 8 km h−1 for four consecutive minutes. Accelerometer counts per 1 sec epoch for the Actigraph GT1M versus the Actigraph 7164 were at 4 km h−1 21·6 ± 12·9 versus 26·5 ± 11·5 counts, at 6 km h−1 56·0 ± 23·2 versus 62·9 ± 25·6 counts and at 8 km h−1 142·6 ± 37·2 versus 156·4 ± 34·9 counts (P<0·01 for all levels of speed). Data from the old generation Actigraph 7164 and the new generation Actigraph GT1M accelerometers differ, where the Actigraph GT1M generates 10-23% lower values. Correction equation for Actigraph GT1M was Actigraph 7164 = 5·2484 +  Actigraph GT1M counts × 1·0448. These results need to be taken into consideration when using these devices.

Ancillary