Evaluation of Accelerometer Inter-Device Variability and Collar Placement in Dogs

  • Anastasia M. Olsen Colorado State University, Department of Clinical Sciences, Veterinary Teaching Hospital, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80525
  • Richard B. Evans RCVS Knowledge, Belgravia House, 62-64, Horseferry Road, London, SW1P 2AF
  • Felix M. Duerr Colorado State University, Department of Clinical Sciences, Veterinary Teaching Hospital, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80525






Objective: To compare accelerometer inter-device variability and to evaluate the effect of canine collar tightness on activity counts.

Evidentiary value: This is a prospective study of six dogs wearing Actical accelerometers over 24 hours with variable placement to evaluate accelerometer inter-device variability and collar tightness. 

Methods: Six skeletally mature medium to large breed client-owned dogs were enrolled in the study. Twelve identical accelerometer devices were used, with the same two devices used for each dog. All accelerometers were placed on the ventral cervical region. A total of four placement patterns (P1: two accelerometers on the same collar; P2: two separate collars with same tightness with one accelerometer on each collar; P3 & P4: one collar loose/one collar tight and one accelerometer on each collar) were evaluated. Pearson’s correlation, paired t-tests, and percent of variation between total activity counts for each placement period were calculated.

Results: For P1-P4, Pearson’s correlation was 0.92, 0.95, 0.93, and 0.86 (p<0.0001 for all comparisons). For P1-P4, t-ratio was -20.59 (p<0.0001), 9.78 (p<0.0001), -8.95 (p<0.0001), and -2.15 (p<0.0313), respectively. When evaluating inter-device variability, the percent differences between total activity counts of device pairs ranged from 2.5 to 56.8%. 

Conclusion: While the correlations between devices for all placements were high, the high inter-device variability shows that further investigation is necessary. From this study, the results suggest that changing devices throughout a study should be avoided. We recommend that attachment of the accelerometers to the collar, including collar tightness, should be kept consistent until further studies are available. 

Application: When accelerometer data are used for objective outcomes, accelerometer inter-device variability and collar tightness should be taken into account.

Open Access Peer Reviewed


Brown, D.C. Boston R.C., Farrar J.T. (2010) Use of an activity monitor to detect response to treatment in dogs with osteoarthritis. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 237 (1) pp. 66-70 http://dx.doi.org/10.2460/javma.237.1.66

Dow, C. et al. (2009) Evaluation of optimal sampling interval for activity monitoring in companion dogs. American Journal of Veterinary Research, 70 (4) pp. 444-448 http://dx.doi.org/10.2460/ajvr.70.4.444

Hansen, B.D. et al. (2007) Evaluation of an accelerometer for at-home monitoring of spontaneous activity in dogs. American Journal of Veterinary Research, 68 (5) pp. 468-475 http://dx.doi.org/10.2460/ajvr.68.5.468

Jones, S. et al. (2014) Use of accelerometers to measure stress levels in shelter dogs. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 17 (1) pp. 18-28 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10888705.2014.856241

Malek, S. et al. (2012) Effect of analgesic therapy on clinical outcome measures in a randomized controlled trial using client-owned dogs with hip osteoarthritis. BMC Veterinary Research, 8 (1) pp. 185 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1746-6148-8-185

Mini Mitter, (2008) Actical Instruction Manual Version 2.12. pp. 1-6.

Moreau, M. et al. (2009) Use of a tri-axial accelerometer for automated recording and classification of goats’ grazing behaviour. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 119 (3-4) pp. 158-170 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2009.04.008

Paul, D.R. et al. (2007) Comparison of two different physical activity monitors. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 7 (1) pp. 26 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-7-26

Preston, T. Baltzer, W. and Trost, S. (2012) Accelerometer validity and placement for detection of changes in physical activity in dogs under controlled conditions on a treadmill. Research in Veterinary Science, 93 (1) pp. 412-416 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rvsc.2011.08.005

Rialland, P. et al. (2012) Clinical validity of outcome pain measures in naturally occurring canine osteoarthritis. BMC Veterinary Research, 8 (1) pp. 162 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1746-6148-8-162

Straker, L. and Campbell, A. (2012) Translation equations to compare ActiGraph GT3X and Actical accelerometers activity counts. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 12 (1) pp. 54 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-12-54

Walton, M.B. et al. (2013) Evaluation of construct and criterion validity for the 'Liverpool Osteoarthritis in Dogs' (LOAD) clinical metrology instrument and comparison to two other instruments. PLoS One, 8 (3) pp. e58125 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0058125

Wernham, B. et al. (2011) Dose reduction of meloxicam in dogs with osteoarthritis‐associated pain and Impaired mobility. Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine, 25 (6) pp. 1298-1305 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1939-1676.2011.00825.x

Yam, P.S. et al. (2011) Validity, practical utility and reliability of Actigraph accelerometry for the measurement of habitual physical activity in dogs. Journal of Small Animal Practice, 52 (2) pp. 86-91 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-5827.2010.01025.x

Yashari, J.M. Duncan, C.G. and Duerr, F.M. (2015) Evaluation of a novel canine activity monitor for at-home physical activity analysis. BMC Veterinary Research, 11 (1) pp. 46 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12917-015-0457-y