CAJ | 학술논문

本研究的目的是测量、评价3种常用加速度计（GT3、RT3以及SwA）在走跑活动以及日常生活活动的测量效度。方法：30名受试者完成走跑类和日常生活类活动的测量。走跑活动分为4个速度（3km／h、4．5km／h、6km／h和7．5krn／h），在室内场地上完。生活类活动有坐姿看书报、站立、擦桌子、擦地板、踢毽。在每种活动测试中，受试者同时佩戴3个加速度计以及气体代谢分析仪CosmedK4b2，以CosmedK4b2为校标比较3个加速度计的效度。结果：1）加速度计对不同类型身体活动的测量效度不同。对走跑活动的测量效度相对较高（快速走时误差只有5％）；对日常生活活动（ADL）的测量效度较低（从20％到100％的误差）。对上肢活动的测量误差显著大于下肢活动；对从坐姿到站立活动的能耗变化不能识别。2）加速度计对于不同强度活动的测量效度不同。低强度和高强度活动时加速度计与校标值（K4b2测量值）之间差异显著（P〈0．05），而中等强度活动时的测量效度较好。3）三种加速度计比较，对于走为主的身体活动，GT3的测量效度相对较好（误差范围小于10％）；对于ADL活动和跑步，SensewearArmband的测量效度相对较好。结论：加速度计的测量效度与身体活动类型、强度以及仪器自身性能等有关。不同加速度计的测量效度存在较大的差异，如果要连续测量成年人多种活动（包括走跑以及日常生活活动）的能耗，SensewearAlnl-band的总体效度好于GT3和RT3。
본연구적목적시측량、평개3충상용가속도계（GT3、RT3이급SwA）재주포활동이급일상생활활동적측량효도。방법：30명수시자완성주포류화일상생활류활동적측량。주포활동분위4개속도（3km／h、4．5km／h、6km／h화7．5krn／h），재실내장지상완。생활류활동유좌자간서보、참립、찰탁자、찰지판、척건。재매충활동측시중，수시자동시패대3개가속도계이급기체대사분석의CosmedK4b2，이CosmedK4b2위교표비교3개가속도계적효도。결과：1）가속도계대불동류형신체활동적측량효도불동。대주포활동적측량효도상대교고（쾌속주시오차지유5％）；대일상생활활동（ADL）적측량효도교저（종20％도100％적오차）。대상지활동적측량오차현저대우하지활동；대종좌자도참립활동적능모변화불능식별。2）가속도계대우불동강도활동적측량효도불동。저강도화고강도활동시가속도계여교표치（K4b2측량치）지간차이현저（P〈0．05），이중등강도활동시적측량효도교호。3）삼충가속도계비교，대우주위주적신체활동，GT3적측량효도상대교호（오차범위소우10％）；대우ADL활동화포보，SensewearArmband적측량효도상대교호。결론：가속도계적측량효도여신체활동류형、강도이급의기자신성능등유관。불동가속도계적측량효도존재교대적차이，여과요련속측량성년인다충활동（포괄주포이급일상생활활동）적능모，SensewearAlnl-band적총체효도호우GT3화RT3。
Objective： Accelerometer can provide objective measurement of physical activity. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the validity of three contemporary activity monitors （GT3, RT3 and SWA） under both laboratory and field conditions. Method： Thirty participants completed two kinds of routines designed to simulate a variety of lifestyle physical activities. Four different speed walking and running were completed under field conditions. Five different lifestyle activities were also examined to evaluate the validity of the monitors. During each routine, the activity levels of participants were monitored with the three activity monitors as well as by indirect calorimetry systems. Results ： 1 ） The validity of accelerometer is different for dif- ferent types of physical activity. The validity of the walking and running were high compared with lifestyle activities;the measured error of upper limb activity is greater than lower limb ac- tivities ; the energy changes from sitting to standing can not be recognized by accelerometers. 2） Accelerometers tended to overestimate or underestimate the EE for the light intensity of PA, whereas overestimate the EE for vigorous activity. 3） The validity among the different monitors were different for the same activity, Actigraph GT3 was found to have better validity for walking （measured error less than 10 % ）, while SWA have better validity for lifestyle activities and running. Conclusion.. The differences among the monitors were attributed primarily to differences activity type, intensity and monitors themselves. If you want to continuously measure the energy expenditure for a variety of activities （including walking, running and daily activities）, Sensewear Armband is preferred compared with GT3 and RT3.