collar tightness

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

Anastasia M. Olsen, Richard B. Evans, Felix M. Duerr

Published:  05/05/2016    in:  Articles

collar tightness

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 AccessPeer Reviewed
Full Text:


Click to see References Click to hide References

  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. Mini Mitter, (2008) Actical Instruction Manual Version 2.12. pp. 1-6.
  7. 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
  8. Paul, D.R. et al. (2007) Comparison of two different physical activity monitors. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 7 (1) pp. 26
  9. 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
  10. Rialland, P. et al. (2012) Clinical validity of outcome pain measures in naturally occurring canine osteoarthritis. BMC Veterinary Research, 8 (1) pp. 162
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. 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

  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright (c) 2016 Anastasia M. Olsen, Richard B. Evans, Felix M. Duerr

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Made possible through a project grant from the RCVS Council.