Skip to main content
. 2018 Jan 30;9:29. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2018.00029

Table 1.

Information from survey of sensor usage in studies involving physical activity (n = 172 studies); data are study count with percentage in parentheses.

Reported Unclear or not reported
Type of contact temperature sensor 144 (84%)a 28 (16%)
Sensor calibration 10 (6%) 162 (94%)
Sensor attachment method 73 (42%)b 99 (58%)
Something reported Not reported
Sensor accuracy, uncertainty, precision, etc. 19 (11%) 153 (89%)
Covered Uncovered
Sensor coverage by attachmentc 65 (38%) 3 (2%)
Yes No or unclear
Calculations using skin temperature data
Mean skin temperature 142 (83%) 30 (17%)
Mean body temperature 39 (23%) 133 (77%)
Other calculations 56 (33%) 116 (67%)
Absolute Change score
Skin temperature data presentation 166 (97%) 30 (17%)
a

Sensor types reported were: thermistors [n = 89; the most common manufacturer reported was Grant Instruments Ltd., Cambridge, UK (n = 29) followed by YSI Inc., Yellow Springs, OH, USA (n = 18); 10 studies reported no manufacturer or supplier information], thermocouples [n = 30; the most common manufacturer or supplier reported was Concept Engineering, Old Saybrook, CT, USA (n = 5) followed by Omega Engineering Ltd, Stamford, CT, USA (n = 3); 17 studies reported no manufacturer or supplier information], iButtons (an oscillator-based digital thermometer; n = 26; Maxim Integrated Products, CA, USA), and resistance thermometers (n = 2). Three studies each used two types of contact temperature sensors so the total of sensor types here is 147 (cf. 144 in the table above).

b

Of the 73 reported, 63 studies used tape and 33 of those studies specified the tape type: 3 M Transpore (n = 13), 3 M Tegaderm (n = 9), BSN Medical Fixomull (n = 4), 3 M Blenderm (n = 2), 3 M Medipore (n = 2), BSN Medical Hypafix (n = 2), Hy-Tape international Hy-Tape (n = 2), Leuko Sportstape (n = 1).

c

The remaining (n = 104, 60%) were unclear or not reported.