Assessment of a Novel Algorithm to Determine Change-of-Direction Angles While Running Using Inertial Sensors

Abstract

Balloch, AS, Meghji, M, Newton, RU, Hart, NH, Weber, JA, Ahmad, I, and Habibi, D. Assessment of a novel algorithm to determine change-of-direction angles while running using inertial sensors. J Strength Cond Res 34(1): 134–144, 2020—The ability to detect and quantify change-of-direction (COD) movement may offer a unique approach to load-monitoring practice. Validity and reliability of a novel algorithm to calculate COD angles for predetermined COD movements ranging from 45 to 180° in left and right directions was assessed. Five recreationally active men (age: 29.0 ± 0.5 years; height: 181.0 ± 5.6 cm; and body mass: 79.4 ± 5.3 kg) ran 5 consecutive predetermined COD trials each, at 4 different angles (45, 90, 135, and 180°), in each direction. Participants were fitted with a commercially available microtechnology unit where inertial sensor data were extracted and processed using a novel algorithm designed to calculate precise COD angles for direct comparison with a high-speed video (remotely piloted, position-locked aircraft) criterion measure. Validity was assessed using Bland-Altman 95% limits of agreement and mean bias. Reliability was assessed using typical error (expressed as a coefficient of variation [CV]). Concurrent validity was present for most angles. Left: (45° = 43.8 ± 2.0°; 90° = 88.1 ± 2.0°; 135° = 136.3 ± 2.1°; and 180° = 181.8 ± 2.5°) and Right: (45° = 46.3 ± 1.6°; 90° = 91.9 ± 2.2°; 135° = 133.4 ± 2.0°; 180° = 179.2 ± 5.9°). All angles displayed excellent reliability (CV < 5%) while greater mean bias (3.6 ± 5.1°, p < 0.001), weaker limits of agreement, and reduced precision were evident for 180° trials when compared with all other angles. High-level accuracy and reliability when detecting COD angles further advocates the use of inertial sensors to quantify sports-specific movement patterns.

The use of inertial measurement units for analyzing change of direction movement in sports: A scoping review

“…35 studies involved adult participants with an age range from 18 to 42 years. [35][36][37]39,47,48,50, Only three studies examined COD movement in individuals under 18 years, [81][82][83] and one study had a combination of youth and adults. 49 In 10 studies, the age of participants was not reported.…”

“…54,55,59,81 19 studies included a combination of two or more COD angles ranging from 45 to 360 . 35,37,39,48,50,52,56,[61][62][63][64][65][78][79][80]84,85,90 Quality assessment. The quality assessment results for all validity/reliability studies is presented in Appendix 3.…”

“…28,31 In previous studies, wearable devices have demonstrated good accuracy for detecting and quantifying sport-specific movements and variables, including jump counts and jump heights in volleyball and for quantifying typical biomechanical patterns in running. 28,29,[32][33][34] Research on the ability of IMUs to detect and analyze COD movement exists, [35][36][37][38][39] but so far this information has not been evaluated or summarized to provide recommendable practices. There are previous reviews presenting the challenges on the use of IMUs for measuring ground reaction forces 40 and the use of regression techniques for continuous biomechanical monitoring.…”

Accuracy, inter-unit reliability and comparison between GPS and UWB-based tracking systems for measuring centripetal force during curvilinear locomotion

“…Due to the multifactorial components of centripetal force, translational acceleration and the Coriolis effect may influence the measurement and validation process. As part of this study, an analysis was performed to measure the translational inclination of the participants when performing the trials (devices were located <15 cm with respect to the marked lines) and the inclination of the trunk was measured using the Euler application 9.67°± 8.46° 26 which proves that both components had a lower impact on the analysis. 44…”

“…24,25 For this purpose, a previous method was used for assessing the CoD angle in locomotion with respect to spatial reference with real measurements as a criterion. 26…”