Measurement of peak impact loads differ between accelerometers - Effects of system operating range and sampling rate

A wide variety of accelerometer systems, with differing sensor characteristics, are used to detect impact loading during physical activities. The study examined the effects of system characteristics on measured peak impact loading during a variety of activities by comparing outputs from three separate accelerometer systems, and by assessing the influence of simulated reductions in operating range and sampling rate. Twelve healthy young adults performed seven tasks (vertical jump, box drop, heel drop, and bilateral single leg and lateral jumps) while simultaneously wearing three tri-axial accelerometers including a criterion standard laboratory-grade unit (Endevco 7267A) and two systems primarily used for activity-monitoring (ActiGraph GT3X+, GCDC X6-2mini). Peak acceleration (gmax) was compared across accelerometers, and errors resulting from down-sampling (from 640 to 100Hz) and range-limiting (to ±6g) the criterion standard output were characterized. The Actigraph activity-monitoring accelerometer underestimated gmax by an average of 30.2%; underestimation by the X6-2mini was not significant. Underestimation error was greater for tasks with greater impact magnitudes. gmax was underestimated when the criterion standard signal was down-sampled (by an average of 11%), range limited (by 11%), and by combined down-sampling and range-limiting (by 18%). These effects explained 89% of the variance in gmax error for the Actigraph system. This study illustrates that both the type and intensity of activity should be considered when selecting an accelerometer for characterizing impact events. In addition, caution may be warranted when comparing impact magnitudes from studies that use different accelerometers, and when comparing accelerometer outputs to osteogenic impact thresholds proposed in literature.