Table 1.
Summary of features of the four fitness tracking devices used in this study.
Fig 1.
Abbreviations: AW, Apple Watch; Fit, Fitbit; OURA, Oura Ring.
Table 2.
Baseline demographics and characteristics of the participants, overall and by use of consumer-grade wearable activity monitoring device.
Table 3.
Summary statistics for the activity data from consumer-grade wearable devices vs ActiGraph data.
Fig 2.
Scatter plots comparing activity data from the ActiGraph GT9X device with those of consumer-grade wearable devices.
The panels are arranged by metric in rows (top: step count; middle: MVPA; bottom: PAEE) and by device in columns (left: Apple Watch; middle: Fitbit; right: Oura Ring). Each panel displays a scatter plot comparing data from a consumer-grade device (y-axis) against the criterion ActiGraph GT9X (x-axis). The solid line in each plot represents the line of best fit from linear regression.
Fig 3.
Bland–Altman plots comparing activity data from the ActiGraph GT9X device with those of consumer-grade wearable devices.
The panels are arranged by metric in rows (top: step count; middle: MVPA; bottom: PAEE) and by device in columns (left: Apple Watch; middle: Fitbit; right: Oura Ring). In each plot, the y-axis shows the difference between the two devices (consumer device − ActiGraph), and the x-axis shows the mean of their measurements ([consumer device + ActiGraph]/2). The three horizontal dashed lines represent the mean difference (bias; central line) and the 95% LoA (upper and lower lines), calculated as the mean difference ± 1.96 SD of the differences.