↓ Skip to main content

Validation of an integrated pedal desk and electronic behavior tracking platform

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Research Notes, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
11 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Validation of an integrated pedal desk and electronic behavior tracking platform
Published in
BMC Research Notes, February 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13104-016-1882-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

John M. Schuna, Catrine Tudor-Locke, Mahara Proença, Tiago V. Barreira, Daniel S. Hsia, Fabio Pitta, Padma Vatsavai, Richard D. Guidry, Matthew R. Magnusen, Amanda D. Cowley, Corby K. Martin

Abstract

This study tested the validity of revolutions per minute (RPM) measurements from the Pennington Pedal Desk™. Forty-four participants (73 % female; 39 ± 11.4 years-old; BMI 25.8 ± 5.5 kg/m(2) [mean ± SD]) completed a standardized trial consisting of guided computer tasks while using a pedal desk for approximately 20 min. Measures of RPM were concurrently collected by the pedal desk and the Garmin Vector power meter. After establishing the validity of RPM measurements with the Garmin Vector, we performed equivalence tests, quantified mean absolute percent error (MAPE), and constructed Bland-Altman plots to assess agreement between RPM measures from the pedal desk and the Garmin Vector (criterion) at the minute-by-minute and trial level (i.e., over the approximate 20 min trial period). The average (mean ± SD) duration of the pedal desk trial was 20.5 ± 2.5 min. Measures of RPM (mean ± SE) at the minute-by-minute (Garmin Vector: 54.8 ± 0.4 RPM; pedal desk: 55.8 ± 0.4 RPM) and trial level (Garmin Vector: 55.0 ± 1.7 RPM; pedal desk: 56.0 ± 1.7 RPM) were deemed equivalent. MAPE values for RPM measured by the pedal desk were small (minute-by-minute: 2.1 ± 0.1 %; trial: 1.8 ± 0.1 %) and no systematic relationships in error variance were evident by Bland-Altman plots. The Pennington Pedal Desk™ provides a valid count of RPM, providing an accurate metric to promote usage.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 4%
Unknown 26 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 26%
Student > Master 3 11%
Student > Bachelor 3 11%
Researcher 2 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 4%
Other 3 11%
Unknown 8 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 6 22%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 7%
Psychology 2 7%
Computer Science 1 4%
Unspecified 1 4%
Other 5 19%
Unknown 10 37%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 March 2016.
All research outputs
#1,911,143
of 19,553,318 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#248
of 3,919 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,765
of 363,467 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,553,318 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,919 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 363,467 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them