Cargando…

Validation of Inertial Sensor to Measure Barbell Kinematics across a Spectrum of Loading Conditions

The aim of this study was to evaluate the level of agreement in measuring back squat kinematics between an inertial measurement unit (IMU) and a 3D motion capture system (3DMOCAP). Kinematic variables included concentric peak velocity (CPV), concentric mean velocity (CMV), eccentric peak velocity (E...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Abbott, John C., Wagle, John P., Sato, Kimitake, Painter, Keith, Light, Thaddeus J., Stone, Michael H.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7404789/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32610449
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/sports8070093
_version_ 1783567185366482944
author Abbott, John C.
Wagle, John P.
Sato, Kimitake
Painter, Keith
Light, Thaddeus J.
Stone, Michael H.
author_facet Abbott, John C.
Wagle, John P.
Sato, Kimitake
Painter, Keith
Light, Thaddeus J.
Stone, Michael H.
author_sort Abbott, John C.
collection PubMed
description The aim of this study was to evaluate the level of agreement in measuring back squat kinematics between an inertial measurement unit (IMU) and a 3D motion capture system (3DMOCAP). Kinematic variables included concentric peak velocity (CPV), concentric mean velocity (CMV), eccentric peak velocity (EPV), eccentric mean velocity (EMV), mean propulsive velocity (MPV), and POP-100: a proprietary variable. Sixteen resistance-trained males performed an incrementally loaded one repetition maximum (1RM) squat protocol. A series of Pearson correlations, 2 × 4 RM ANOVA, Cohen’s d effect size differences, coefficient of variation (CV), and standard error of the estimate (SEE) were calculated. A large relationship existed for all variables between devices (r = 0.78–0.95). Between-device agreement for CPV worsened beyond 60% 1RM. The remaining variables were in agreement between devices with trivial effect size differences and similar CV magnitudes. These results support the use of the IMU, regardless of relative intensity, when measuring EMV, EPV, MPV, and POP-100. However, practitioners should carefully select kinematic variables of interest when using the present IMU device for velocity-based training (VBT), as certain measurements (e.g., CMV, CPV) do not possess practically acceptable reliability or accuracy. Finally, the IMU device exhibited considerable practical data collection concerns, as one participant was completely excluded and 13% of the remaining attempts displayed obvious internal error.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7404789
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-74047892020-08-11 Validation of Inertial Sensor to Measure Barbell Kinematics across a Spectrum of Loading Conditions Abbott, John C. Wagle, John P. Sato, Kimitake Painter, Keith Light, Thaddeus J. Stone, Michael H. Sports (Basel) Article The aim of this study was to evaluate the level of agreement in measuring back squat kinematics between an inertial measurement unit (IMU) and a 3D motion capture system (3DMOCAP). Kinematic variables included concentric peak velocity (CPV), concentric mean velocity (CMV), eccentric peak velocity (EPV), eccentric mean velocity (EMV), mean propulsive velocity (MPV), and POP-100: a proprietary variable. Sixteen resistance-trained males performed an incrementally loaded one repetition maximum (1RM) squat protocol. A series of Pearson correlations, 2 × 4 RM ANOVA, Cohen’s d effect size differences, coefficient of variation (CV), and standard error of the estimate (SEE) were calculated. A large relationship existed for all variables between devices (r = 0.78–0.95). Between-device agreement for CPV worsened beyond 60% 1RM. The remaining variables were in agreement between devices with trivial effect size differences and similar CV magnitudes. These results support the use of the IMU, regardless of relative intensity, when measuring EMV, EPV, MPV, and POP-100. However, practitioners should carefully select kinematic variables of interest when using the present IMU device for velocity-based training (VBT), as certain measurements (e.g., CMV, CPV) do not possess practically acceptable reliability or accuracy. Finally, the IMU device exhibited considerable practical data collection concerns, as one participant was completely excluded and 13% of the remaining attempts displayed obvious internal error. MDPI 2020-06-29 /pmc/articles/PMC7404789/ /pubmed/32610449 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/sports8070093 Text en © 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Abbott, John C.
Wagle, John P.
Sato, Kimitake
Painter, Keith
Light, Thaddeus J.
Stone, Michael H.
Validation of Inertial Sensor to Measure Barbell Kinematics across a Spectrum of Loading Conditions
title Validation of Inertial Sensor to Measure Barbell Kinematics across a Spectrum of Loading Conditions
title_full Validation of Inertial Sensor to Measure Barbell Kinematics across a Spectrum of Loading Conditions
title_fullStr Validation of Inertial Sensor to Measure Barbell Kinematics across a Spectrum of Loading Conditions
title_full_unstemmed Validation of Inertial Sensor to Measure Barbell Kinematics across a Spectrum of Loading Conditions
title_short Validation of Inertial Sensor to Measure Barbell Kinematics across a Spectrum of Loading Conditions
title_sort validation of inertial sensor to measure barbell kinematics across a spectrum of loading conditions
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7404789/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32610449
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/sports8070093
work_keys_str_mv AT abbottjohnc validationofinertialsensortomeasurebarbellkinematicsacrossaspectrumofloadingconditions
AT waglejohnp validationofinertialsensortomeasurebarbellkinematicsacrossaspectrumofloadingconditions
AT satokimitake validationofinertialsensortomeasurebarbellkinematicsacrossaspectrumofloadingconditions
AT painterkeith validationofinertialsensortomeasurebarbellkinematicsacrossaspectrumofloadingconditions
AT lightthaddeusj validationofinertialsensortomeasurebarbellkinematicsacrossaspectrumofloadingconditions
AT stonemichaelh validationofinertialsensortomeasurebarbellkinematicsacrossaspectrumofloadingconditions