skip to main content
10.1145/2526667.2526674acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagessensecamConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

The feasibility of using SenseCams to measure the type and context of daily sedentary behaviors

Authors Info & Claims
Published:18 November 2013Publication History

ABSTRACT

The SenseCam data can be used to estimate time spent in specific episodes of sedentary behaviors, as well as some dimensions of sedentary behaviors. However, it is unknown whether SenseCam data can be aggregated to provide an objective estimate of total sedentary time accumulated during a single day. We compared SenseCam-derived day-level estimates to self-report estimates of time spent in sedentary behaviors using 39 days of concurrent SenseCam and self-report data from a sample of university employed adults (age 18--70 years). We also examined whether SenseCam data can be used to compute day-level estimates of specific dimensions of sedentary behavior (e.g., co-occurring sedentary behaviors and social context). Twenty-four percent of the days of SenseCam image data collected did not have enough image data (i.e., ≥8 hours of data) to generate day-level estimates. Further, the day-level agreement between the SenseCam and self-report estimates of time spent in sedentary behaviors varied considerably by device wear time. In terms of dimensions of sedentary behaviors measured by the SenseCam, over one-third of the total sedentary time involved a social interaction and the majority (71%) of the estimated sedentary time was spent in one behavior. Overall, SenseCam data can be used to compute day-level estimates of time spent in specific episodes of sedentary behaviors and the images provide data on critical dimensions of these behaviors; however, device wear-time significantly influences the accuracy of day-level estimates.

References

  1. Ainswort BE, Haskell WL, Herrmann SD, Meckes N, Bassett DR, Tudor-Locke C, et al. Compendium of Physical Activities: a second update of codes and MET values. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise (2011), 43: 1575--81.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Atkin AJ, Gorely T, Clemes SA, Yates T, Edwardson C, Brage S, et al. Methods of Measurement in epidemiology: Sedentary Behaviour. International Journal of Epidemiology (2012) 41 (5): 1460--1471.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Clark BK, Sugiyama T, Healy GN, Salmon J, Dunstan DW, Owen N. Validity and reliability of measures of television viewing time and other non-occupational sedentary behaviour of adults: a review. Obesity Reviews (2009), 10(1): 7--16.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Clark BK, Winkler E, Healy GN, Gardiner PG, Dunstan DW, Owen N, Reeves MM. Adults' Past-Day Recall of Sedentary Time: Reliability, Validity, and Responsiveness. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 2013. 45(6): p. 1198--1207.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Doherty AR, Caprani N, O Conaire C, Kalnikaite V, Gurrin C, O'Connor NE, et al. Passively recognising human activities through lifelogging. Computers in Human Behavior (2011), 27 (5): 1948--1958 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Doherty AR, Kelly P, Brenden O, Curran P, Smeaton AF, O'Mathuna C, et al. Effects of environmental colour on mood: a wearable LifeColour capture device. In Proc. ICM, 2010, Computers in Human Behavior (2010), 10: 1655--8. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Doherty AR, Moulin CJA, Smeaton AF. Automatically assisting human memory: a SenseCam browser. Memory (2011), 19: 785--95.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Edwardson CL, Gorely T, Davies MJ, Gray LJ, Khunti K, Wilmot EG, et al. Association of sedentary behaviour with metabolic syndrome: a meta-analysis. PloS one (2012), 7 (4): e34916--e34916.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Gore SA, Foster JA, DiLillo VG, Kirk K, Smith West D. Television viewing and snacking. Eating behaviors (2003), 4(4): 399--405.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Grant PM, Ryan CG, Tigbe, WW, Granat MH. The validation of a novel activity monitor in the measurement of posture and motion during everyday activities. British Journal of Sports Medicine (2006), 40: 992--997.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Healy GN, Clark BK, Winkler EAH, Gardiner PA, Brown WJ, Matthews CE. Measurement of Adults' Sedentary Time in Population-Based Studies. American journal of preventive medicine (2011), 41(2): 216--227.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Healy GN, Dunstan DW, Salmon J, Cerin E, Shaw JE, Zimmet PZ, et al. Breaks in sedentary time: beneficial associations with metabolic risk. Diabetes Care (2008), 31(4): 661--6.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Kelly P, Doherty A, Berry E, Hodges S, Batterham AM, Foster C. Can we use digital life-log images to investigate active and sedentary travel behaviour? Results from a pilot study. The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity (2011), 8: 44.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Kelly P, Doherty AR, Hamilton A, Matthews A, Batterham AM, Nelson M, et al. Evaluating the feasibility of measuring travel to school using a wearable camera. American journal of preventive medicine (2012), 43: 546--50.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Kelly P, Marshall SJ, Badland H, Kerr J, Oliver M, Doherty AR, Foster C. An Ethical framework for automated, wearable cameras in health behavior research. American journal of preventive medicine (2013), 44: 314--9.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Kerr J, Marshall SJ, Godbole S, Chen J, Legge A, Doherty AR, et al. Using the SenseCam to improve classifications of sedentary behavior in free-living settings. American journal of preventive medicine (2013), 44(3): 290--6.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Matthews CE, Chen KY, Freedson PS, Buchowski MS, Beech BM, Pate RR, et al. Amount of time spent in sedentary behaviors in the United States, 2003--2004. American journal of epidemiology (2008), 167: 875--81.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Proper KI, Singh AS, van Mechelen W, Chinapaw MJM. Sedentary behaviors and health outcomes among adults: a systematic review of prospective studies. American journal of preventive medicine (2011), 40: 174--82.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Tremblay, M. Letter to the editor: standardized use of the terms "sedentary" and "sedentary behaviours". Sedentary Behaviour Research Network. NRC Research Press (2012), 37(3): 540--2.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Tudor-Locke C, Camhi SM, Troiano RP. A Catalog of Rules, Variables, and Definitions Applied to Accelerometer Data in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 2003--2006. CDC-Preventing Chronic Disease (2012), 9: 110332.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Tudor-Locke C, Johnson WD, Katzmarzyk PT. U.S. population profile of time-stamped accelerometer outputs: impact of wear time. Journal of physical activity & health (2011), 8(5): 693--8.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. The feasibility of using SenseCams to measure the type and context of daily sedentary behaviors

            Recommendations

            Comments

            Login options

            Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

            Sign in
            • Published in

              cover image ACM Other conferences
              SenseCam '13: Proceedings of the 4th International SenseCam & Pervasive Imaging Conference
              November 2013
              99 pages
              ISBN:9781450322478
              DOI:10.1145/2526667

              Copyright © 2013 ACM

              Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

              Publisher

              Association for Computing Machinery

              New York, NY, United States

              Publication History

              • Published: 18 November 2013

              Permissions

              Request permissions about this article.

              Request Permissions

              Check for updates

              Qualifiers

              • research-article

              Acceptance Rates

              SenseCam '13 Paper Acceptance Rate9of22submissions,41%Overall Acceptance Rate9of22submissions,41%

            PDF Format

            View or Download as a PDF file.

            PDF

            eReader

            View online with eReader.

            eReader