Interaction forces in climbing: cost-efficient complementation of a 6dof instrumentation

Bauer, Franz X.; Simnacher, Martin; Stöcker, Urs; Riener, Robert; Wolf, Peter

doi:10.1080/19346182.2015.1064127

Cited by 4 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Moreover, measures changed by less than

1

when force is applied with up to

90

mm of offset from the attachment point, and the crosstalk is below

4

between all channels. The performance is slightly inferior to that obtained through other designs (e.g., ( 21 )) but still adequate for most purposes, with the great advantage of having a single-piece sensor body, which simplifies production and reduces costs (for a 3-DOF sensor). Since we characterized a single sensor, it might possible to observe some variability of these parameters within the batch, though the industrial production process should guarantee reasonable repeatability.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 75%

“…Moving or adding a sensor thus requires attaching 4 screws and connecting the sensor as an arbitrary segment of the daisy chain. When it came to building the sensors, the total cost for the low-volume industrial production of a batch of sensors by a load-cell manufacturer, plus the cost to have the custom-made acquisition boards assembled by a PCB manufacturer was about 310C

per sensor, in line with the low-cost (and 2-DOF) implementation suggested in ( 21 ). These features satisfy (R1)–(R3).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 89%

“…We, therefore, chose to use force sensors integrated into the wall surface and designed to allow the mounting of standard climbing holds with standard M10 attachment screws. While ( 21 ) explored the opportunity of using

1

2

-Degrees-Of-Freedom (DOF) force sensors to instrument a climbing wall, with the measurement axes lying in the plane parallel to the wall, a full

3

-DOF sensor may provide more complete information regarding the pose of the climber’s body. We, therefore, decided to follow the route of a

3

-DOF sensor, with a complete redesign of the sensor geometry to limit costs and manufacturing complexity.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In most of the above studies that involve force measurements, data was collected using commercial, general-purpose force sensors adapted to fit the task (with the notable exception of ( 21 , 23 )). Furthermore, the sensor networks were designed for use in a laboratory environment, meaning that in many cases the sensors were visible to the climber and potentially altered the climbing experience.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Design of a sensor network for the quantitative analysis of sport climbing

Colombo

Maj

Canina

et al. 2023

Front. Sports Act. Living

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We describe the design of a modular sensorized climbing wall for motion analysis in a naturalistic environment. The wall is equipped with force sensors to measure interaction forces between the athlete and the wall, which can be used by experienced instructors, athletes, or therapists, to gain insights into the quality of motion. A specifically designed triaxial load cell is integrated into each hold placement, invisible to the climber, and compatible with standard climbing holds. Data collected through the sensors is sent to an app running on a portable device. The wall can be adapted to different uses. To validate our design, we recorded a repeated climbing activity of eleven climbers with varying degrees of expertise. Analysis of the interaction forces during the exercise demonstrates that the sensor network design can provide valuable information to track and analyze exercise performance changes over time. Here we report the design process as well as the validation and testing of the sensorized climbing wall.

show abstract

“…Moreover, measures changed by less than

1

when force is applied with up to

90

mm of offset from the attachment point, and the crosstalk is below

4

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 75%

per sensor, in line with the low-cost (and 2-DOF) implementation suggested in ( 21 ). These features satisfy (R1)–(R3).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 89%

1

2

-Degrees-Of-Freedom (DOF) force sensors to instrument a climbing wall, with the measurement axes lying in the plane parallel to the wall, a full

3

-DOF sensor may provide more complete information regarding the pose of the climber’s body. We, therefore, decided to follow the route of a

3

-DOF sensor, with a complete redesign of the sensor geometry to limit costs and manufacturing complexity.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Design of a sensor network for the quantitative analysis of sport climbing

Colombo

Maj

Canina

et al. 2023

Front. Sports Act. Living

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…That would allow, for example, to measure contact forces at many footholds and handholds. Towards this goal, Bauer et al [90] recently showed that route instrumentation with one-and two-dimensional force sensors can be a cost-efficient alternative to standard six-dimensional force sensors. On the other hand, Iguma et al [91] showed early results that suggest that a 3D motion capture system can be exploited to simultaneously collect motion and force measurements.…”

Section: B Sensor Data Collectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sensor-Based Activity Recognition and Performance Assessment in Climbing: A Review

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the past decades, a number of technological developments made it possible to continuously collect various types of sport activity data in an unobtrusive way. Machine learning and analytical methods have been applied to flows of sensor data to predict the conducted sport activity as well as to calculate key performance indicators. In that scenario, researchers started to be interested in leveraging pervasive information technologies for sport climbing, thus allowing, in day-to-day climbing practice, the realization of systems for automatic assessment of a climber's performance, detection of injury risk factors, and virtual coaching. This article surveys recent research works on the recognition of climbing activities and the evaluation of climbing performance indicators, where data have been acquired with accelerometers, cameras, force sensors, and other types of sensors. We describe the main types of sensors and equipment adopted for data acquisition, the techniques used to extract relevant features from sensor data, and the methods that have been proposed to identify the activities performed by a climber and to calculate key performance indicators. We also present a classification taxonomy of climbing activities and climbing performance indicators with the aim to unify the existing work and facilitate comparison of different methods. Moreover, open problems that call for new approaches and solutions are here discussed. We conclude that there is considerable scope for further work, particularly in the application of recognition techniques to problems involving different climbing activities. We hope that this survey will assist in the translation of research effort into intelligent environments that climbers will benefit from.

show abstract