Assessing physical activity intensity by video analysis. (22nd April 2015)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Silva, P; Santiago, C; Reis, L P; Sousa, A; Mota, J; Welk, G
• Is Part Of: Physiological measurement. Volume 36:Number 5(2015:May)
• Page Start: 1037
• Page End: 1046
• Publication Date: 2015-04-22
• Subjects: motion classification -- accelerometer -- direct observation -- video tracking; Physiology -- Measurement -- Periodicals; Patient monitoring -- Periodicals; 612
• DOI: 10.1088/0967-3334/36/5/1037
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0967-3334

Abstract

Abstract: Assessing physical activity (PA) is a challenging task and many different approaches have been proposed. Direct observation (DO) techniques can objectively code both the behavior and the context in which it occurred, however, they have significant limitations such as the cost and burden associated with collecting and processing data. Therefore, this study evaluated the utility of an automated video analysis system (CAM) designed to record and discriminate the intensity of PA using a subject tracking methodology. The relative utility of the CAM system and DO were compared with criterion data from an objective accelerometry-based device (Actigraph GT3X+). Eight 10 year old children (three girls and five boys) wore the GT3X+ during a standard basketball session. PA was analyzed by two observers using the SOPLAY instrument and by the CAM system. The GT3X+ and the CAM were both set up to collect data at 30 Hz while the DO was performed every two minutes, with 10 s of observation for each gender. The GT3X+ was processed using cut points by Evanson and the outcome measure was the percentage of time spent in different intensities of PA. The CAM data were processed similarly using the same speed thresholds as were used in establishing the Evenson cut-off points (light: <2 mph; walking: 2–4 mph; very active: >4 mph). Similar outcomes were computed from the SOPLAY default analyses. A chi-square test was used to test differences in the percentage of time at the three intensity zones (light, walking and very active). The Yates' correction was used to prevent overestimation of statistical significance for small data. When compared with GT3X+, the CAM had better results than the SOPLAY. The chi-square test yielded the following pairwise comparisons: CAM versus GT3x+ was χ 2 (5) = 24.18, p < .001; SOPLAY2 versus GT3x+ was χ 2 (5) = 144.44, p < .001; SOPLAY1 versus GT3x+ was χ 2 (5) = 119.55, p < .001. The differences were smaller between CAM and GT3x+, suggesting that the video tracking system provided better agreement than DO. The small sample size precludes a definitive evaluation but the results show that the CAM video system may have promise for automated coding of physical activity behavior.