![]() ![]() Positioning the Actiheart at the level below the sternum may yield cleaner HR data. In all test scenarios, estimates of energy expenditure from the two positions were not significantly different. During free-living, no placement effect on counts was observed. There were minor placement differences (< or =8%) in movement counts only in women during incline walking and running. lower position, RR=1.3 in women, RR=174 in men) and during free-living (RR=1.2 in women, RR=25 in men). This effect was more pronounced in men during both treadmill activity (relative risk, RR of noisy HR data in upper vs. Quality of HR data was generally higher when monitors were placed in the lower position. Placement differences in HR data quality, movement counts, and energy expenditure (estimated from combined HR and movement) were analyzed with regression techniques. Whilst wearing two monitors, one placed at the level of the third intercostal space (upper position) and one just below the apex of the sternum (lower position), study participants performed level walking, incline walking, and level running on treadmill, and completed at least one day of free-living monitoring. The purpose of this study was to examine the extent to which placement of the combined HR and movement sensor, Actiheart, influences measurement of HR and movement, and estimates of energy expenditure. Positioning of electrodes may impact on movement artifact susceptibility as well as surface ECG waveform amplitudes and thus potentially on the precision by which heart rate (HR) is ascertained from such ECG traces. ![]() A placement effect on activity measures from movement sensors has been reported during treadmill and free-living activity. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |