Physical Activity Evaluation Using a Voice Recognition App: Development and Validation Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Historically, the evaluation of physical activity has involved a variety of methods such as the use of questionnaires, accelerometers, behavior records, and global positioning systems, each according to the purpose of the evaluation. The use of web-based physical activity evaluation systems has been proposed as an easy method for collecting physical activity data. Voice recognition technology not only eliminates the need for questionnaires during physical activity evaluation but also enables users to record their behavior without physically touching electronic devices. The use of a web-based voice recognition system might be an effective way to record physical activity and behavior. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to develop a physical activity evaluation app to record behavior using voice recognition technology and to examine the app's validity by comparing data obtained using both the app and an accelerometer simultaneously. METHODS: A total of 20 participants (14 men, 6 women; mean age 19.1 years, SD 0.9) wore a 3-axis accelerometer and inputted behavioral data into their smartphones for a period of 7 days. We developed a behavior-recording system with a voice recognition function using a voice recognition application programming interface. The exercise intensity was determined from the text data obtained by the voice recognition program. The measure of intensity was metabolic equivalents (METs). RESULTS: From the voice input data of the participants, 601 text-converted data could be confirmed, of which 471 (78.4%) could be automatically converted into behavioral words. In the time-matched analysis, the mean daily METs values measured by the app and the accelerometer were 1.64 (SD 0.20) and 1.63 (SD 0.20), respectively, between which there was no significant difference (P=.57). There was a significant correlation between the average METs obtained from the voice recognition app and the accelerometer in the time-matched analysis (r=0.830, P<.001). In the Bland-Altman plot for METs measured by the voice recognition app as compared with METs measured by accelerometer, the mean difference between the two methods was very small (0.02 METs), with 95% limits of agreement from -0.26 to 0.22 METs between the two methods. CONCLUSIONS: The average METs value measured by the voice recognition app was consistent with that measured by the 3-axis accelerometer and, thus, the data gathered by the two measurement methods showed a high correlation. The voice recognition method also demonstrated the ability of the system to measure the physical activity of a large number of people at the same time with less burden on the participants. Although there were still issues regarding the improvement of automatic text data classification technology and user input compliance, this research proposes a new method for evaluating physical activity using voice recognition technology.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,015 | 0,017 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».