3rd international conference on ambulatory monitoring of physical activity and movement (University of Massachusetts, Amherst, USA, June 17-19, 2013)

Physiological Measurement

Volumn 35, Issue 11, 2014, Pages E2179-E2181

  Stansfield, Ben ^a   Clemes, Stacy ^b   John, Dinesh ^c   Meijer, Kenneth ^d   Melanson, Ed ^e   Rowlands, Alex ^f   Staudenmayer, John ^g  

^a GLASGOW CALEDONIAN UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b LOUGHBOROUGH UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^c NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d MAASTRICHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^e UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO   (United States)

^f UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA   (Australia)

^g UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AMBULATORY MONITORING; PHYSICAL ACTIVITY; PHYSICAL MOVEMENTS; UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST;

AMBULATORY MONITORING; HUMAN; MOTOR ACTIVITY;

HUMANS; MONITORING, AMBULATORY; MOTOR ACTIVITY;

EID: 84908448966     PISSN: 09673334     EISSN: 13616579     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1088/0967-3334/35/11/2179     Document Type: Editorial

References (13)

1. Benka Wallén M, Nero H, Franzén E and Hagströmer M 2014 Comparison of two accelerometer filter settings in individuals with Parkinson's disease Physiol. Meas. 35 2287-96
2. Berendsen B A J, Hendriks M R C, Willems P, Meijer K, Schaper N C and Savelberg H H C M 2014 A 20 min window is optimal in a nonwear algorithm for tri-axial thigh-worn accelerometry in overweight people Physiol. Meas. 35 2205-12
3. Chastin S F M, Culhane B and Dall P M 2014 Comparison of self-reported measure of sitting time (IPAQ) with objective measurement (activPAL) Physiol. Meas. 35 2319-28
4. Del Rosario M B, Wang K, Wang J, Liu Y, Brodie M, Delbaere K, Lovell N H, Lord S R and Redmond S J 2014 A comparison of activity classification in younger and older cohorts using a smartphone Physiol. Meas. 35 2269-86
5. Ellis K, Kerr J, Godbole S, Lanckriet G, Wing D and Marshall S 2014 A random forest classifier for the prediction of energy expenditure and type of physical activity from wrist and hip accelerometers Physiol. Meas. 35 2191-2203
6. Hislop J, Law J, Rush R, Grainger A, Bulley C, Reilly J J and Mercer T 2014 An investigation into the minimum accelerometry wear time for reliable estimates of habitual physical activity and definition of a standard measurement day in pre-school children Physiol. Meas. 35 2213-28
7. Kang M, Bjornson K, Barreira T V, Ragan B G and Song K 2014 The minimum number of days required to establish reliable physical activity estimates in children aged 2-15 years Physiol. Meas. 35 2229-2237
8. Kooijmans H, Horemans H L D, Stam H J and Bussmann J B J 2014 Valid detection of self-propelled wheelchair driving with two accelerometers Physiol. Meas. 35 2297-2306
9. Li Q and Zhang J-T 2014 Post-trial anatomical frame alignment procedure for comparison of 3D joint angle measurement from magnetic/inertial measurement units and camera-based systems Physiol. Meas. 35 2255-68
10. McBrearty D, McCrorie P, Granat M, Duncan E and Stansfield B 2014 Objective assessment of intensity categorization of the previous day physical activity recall questionnaire in 11-13 year old children Physiol. Meas. 35 2329-42
11. O'Donoghue D and Kennedy N 2014 Validity of an activity monitor in young people with cerebral palsy gross motor function classification system level I Physiol. Meas. 35 2307-18
12. Trost S G, Zheng Y and Wong W-K 2014 Machine learning for activity recognition: hip versus wrist data Physiol. Meas. 35 2183-89
13. Tulchin-Francis K, Stevens W Jr and Jeans K 2014 Intensity and duration of activity bouts decreases in healthy children between 7 and 13 years of age: a new, higher resolution method to analyze StepWatch activity monitor data Physiol. Meas. 35 2239-2254