Smart Watch Versus Classic Receivers: Static Validity of Three GPS Devices in Different Types of Built Environments.
GPS
Garmin smart watch
accuracy
environment
geodetic point
logger
Journal
Sensors (Basel, Switzerland)
ISSN: 1424-8220
Titre abrégé: Sensors (Basel)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101204366
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
30 Oct 2021
30 Oct 2021
Historique:
received:
29
09
2021
revised:
21
10
2021
accepted:
28
10
2021
entrez:
13
11
2021
pubmed:
14
11
2021
medline:
17
11
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
In order to study the relationship between human physical activity and the design of the built environment, it is important to measure the location of human movement accurately. In this study, we compared an inexpensive GPS receiver (Holux RCV-3000) and a frequently used Garmin Forerunner 35 smart watch, with a device that has been validated and recommended for physical activity research (Qstarz BT-Q1000XT). These instruments were placed on six geodetic points, which represented a range of different environments (e.g., residential, open space, park). The coordinates recorded by each device were compared with the known coordinates of the geodetic points. There were no differences in accuracy among the three devices when averaged across the six sites. However, the Garmin was more accurate in the city center and the Holux was more accurate in the park and housing estate areas compared to the other devices. We consider the location accuracy of the Holux and the Garmin to be comparable to that of the Qstarz. Therefore, we consider these devices to be suitable instruments for locating physical activity. Researchers must also consider other differences among these devices (such as battery life) when determining if they are suitable for their research studies.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34770539
pii: s21217232
doi: 10.3390/s21217232
pmc: PMC8588079
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Subventions
Organisme : Palacký University, Olomouc
ID : IGA_FTK_2018_002
Références
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2017 Feb 28;5(2):e24
pubmed: 28246070
Health Place. 2019 Nov;60:102226
pubmed: 31797771
Health Place. 2015 Mar;32:1-7
pubmed: 25588788
Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2009 Jul 17;6:42
pubmed: 19615073
Am J Prev Med. 2010 Apr;38(4):429-38
pubmed: 20307812
Environ Health Perspect. 2016 Mar;124(3):290-8
pubmed: 26186801
Geospat Health. 2012 May;6(2):263-72
pubmed: 22639128
PLoS One. 2018 Feb 8;13(2):e0192708
pubmed: 29420620
Front Public Health. 2014 Mar 10;2:21
pubmed: 24653984
J Strength Cond Res. 2016 May;30(5):1470-90
pubmed: 26439776
Environ Health Prev Med. 2021 Jun 12;26(1):66
pubmed: 34118885
Pediatrics. 2016 Jan;137(1):
pubmed: 26647375
Am J Prev Med. 2013 Feb;44(2):e19-29
pubmed: 23332343
J Phys Act Health. 2010 Jan;7(1):102-8
pubmed: 20231761
Lancet. 2016 May 28;387(10034):2207-17
pubmed: 27045735
Health Place. 2015 Jan;31:90-9
pubmed: 25463922
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2011 Feb;43(2):365-72
pubmed: 20581721
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2008 May;40(5):972-8
pubmed: 18408598
Am J Prev Med. 2011 Nov;41(5):508-15
pubmed: 22011423
Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2014 Jan 24;11:8
pubmed: 24457029
Am J Prev Med. 2011 Nov;41(5):532-40
pubmed: 22011426
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018 Jun 21;15(7):
pubmed: 29933548
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2020 Jun 24;8(6):e17118
pubmed: 32396865
Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2010 Apr 22;7:31
pubmed: 20412582
Prev Med. 2010 May-Jun;50(5-6):235-40
pubmed: 20153361
Prev Med. 2018 May;110:47-54
pubmed: 29432790
J Phys Act Health. 2017 Jun;14(6):474-478
pubmed: 28253072
Am J Prev Med. 2017 Sep;53(3):e81-e87
pubmed: 28495219