Jan Maslik

A novel, wearable, stretchable Smart Patch can monitor various aspects of physical activity, including the dynamics of running. However, like any new device developed for such applications, it must first be tested for validity and reliability. Here, we compare the step rate while running on a treadmill measured by this smart patch with the corresponding values obtained with the ”gold standard” OptoGait, as well as with other devices commonly used to assess running dynamics, i.e., the MEMS accelerometer and commercially available and widely used Garmin Running Dynamic Pod. The 14 healthy, physically active volunteers completed two identical sessions with a 5-minute rest between. Each session involved two one-minute runs at 11 km/h and 14 km/h separated by a one-min rest. The major finding was that the Smart Patch demonstrated fair to good test-retest reliability. The best test-retest reliability for the Running Pod was observed in connection with running at 11 km/h and both velocities combined (good and excellent, respectively) and for the OptoGait when running at 14 km/h (good). The best concurrent validity was achieved with the Smart Patch, as reflected in the highest Pearson correlation coefficient for this device when running at 11 or 14 km/h, as well as for both velocities combined. In conclusion, this study demonstrates that the novel wearable Smart Patch shows promising reliability and excellent concurrent validity in measuring step rate during treadmill running, making it a viable tool for both research and practical applications in sports and exercise science.

A novel wearable smart patch can monitor various aspects of physical activity, including the dynamics of running, but like any new device developed for such applications, it must first be tested for validity. Here, we compare the step rate while running in place as measured by this smart patch to the corresponding values obtained utilizing ‘‘gold standard’’ MEMS accelerometers in combination with bilateral force plates equipped with HBM load cells, as well as the values provided by a three-dimensional motion capture system and the Garmin Dynamics Running Pod. The 15 healthy, physically active volunteers (age = 23 ± 3 years; body mass = 74 ± 17 kg, height = 176 ± 10 cm) completed three consecutive 20-s bouts of running in place, starting at low, followed by medium, and finally at high intensity, all self-chosen. Our major findings are that the rates of running in place provided by all four systems were valid, with the notable exception of the fast step rate as measured by the Garmin Running Pod. The lowest mean bias and LoA for these measurements at all rates were associated consistently with the smart patch.