The Role of Multi-Sensor Measurement in the Assessment of Movement Quality: A Systematic Review

Swain, Alex; McNarry, Melitta; H., Adam W.; Mackintosh, Kelly

doi:10.1007/s40279-023-01905-1

Journal article 213 views 16 downloads

The Role of Multi-Sensor Measurement in the Assessment of Movement Quality: A Systematic Review

Alex Swain, Melitta McNarry

, Adam W. H. Runacres

, Kelly Mackintosh

Sports Medicine

Swansea University Authors: Alex Swain, Melitta McNarry , Kelly Mackintosh

PDF | Version of Record

© The Author(s) 2023. Distributed under the terms of a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (CC BY 4.0).
Download (1.14MB)

Check full text

DOI (Published version): 10.1007/s40279-023-01905-1

Abstract

Background: Movement quality is typically assessed by drawing comparisons against predetermined movement standards. Movements are often discretely scored or labelled against pre-set criteria, though movement quality can also be evaluated using motion-related measurements (e.g., spatio-temporal param...

Full description

Published in:	Sports Medicine
ISSN:	0112-1642 1179-2035
Published:	Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Online Access:	Check full text
URI:	https://cronfa.swan.ac.uk/Record/cronfa64059
Tags:	Add Tag No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!

first_indexed	2023-09-15T14:11:30Z
last_indexed	2023-09-15T14:11:30Z
id	cronfa64059
recordtype	SURis
fullrecord	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rfc1807 xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"><bib-version>v2</bib-version><id>64059</id><entry>2023-08-09</entry><title>The Role of Multi-Sensor Measurement in the Assessment of Movement Quality: A Systematic Review</title><swanseaauthors><author><sid>e58af411e7a9cdf4197ff81cad1eb321</sid><firstname>Alex</firstname><surname>Swain</surname><name>Alex Swain</name><active>true</active><ethesisStudent>false</ethesisStudent></author><author><sid>062f5697ff59f004bc8c713955988398</sid><ORCID>0000-0003-0813-7477</ORCID><firstname>Melitta</firstname><surname>McNarry</surname><name>Melitta McNarry</name><active>true</active><ethesisStudent>false</ethesisStudent></author><author><sid>bdb20e3f31bcccf95c7bc116070c4214</sid><ORCID>0000-0003-0355-6357</ORCID><firstname>Kelly</firstname><surname>Mackintosh</surname><name>Kelly Mackintosh</name><active>true</active><ethesisStudent>false</ethesisStudent></author></swanseaauthors><date>2023-08-09</date><deptcode>FGSEN</deptcode><abstract>Background: Movement quality is typically assessed by drawing comparisons against predetermined movement standards. Movements are often discretely scored or labelled against pre-set criteria, though movement quality can also be evaluated using motion-related measurements (e.g., spatio-temporal parameters and kinematic variables). Wearable technology has the potential to measure and assess movement quality and offer valuable, practical feedback. Objectives: A systematic approach was taken to examine the benefits associated with multi-sensor and multiple wearable-device usage, compared with unimodal applications, when assessing movement quality. Consequently, this review considers the additional variables and features that could be obtained through multi-sensor devices for use in movement analyses. Processing methods and applications of the various configurations were also explored. Methods: Articles were included within this review if they were written in English, specifically studied the use of wearable sensors to assess movement quality, and were published between January 2010 and December 2022. Of the 62,635 articles initially identified, 27 papers were included in this review. The quality of included studies was determined using a modified Downs and Black checklist, with 24/27 high quality. Results: Fifteen of the 27 included studies used a classification approach, 11 used a measurement approach, and one used both methods. Accelerometers featured in all 27 studies, in isolation (n = 5), with a gyroscope (n = 9), or with both a gyroscope and a magnetometer (n = 13). Sampling frequencies across all studies ranged from 50 to 200 Hz. The most common classification methods were traditional feature-based classifiers (n = 5) and support vector machines (SVM; n = 5). Sensor fusion featured in six of the 16 classification studies and nine of the 12 measurement studies, with the Madgwick algorithm most prevalent (n = 7). Conclusions: This systematic review highlights the differences between the applications and processing methods associated with the use of unimodal and multi-sensor wearable devices when assessing movement quality. Further, the use of multiple devices appears to increase the feasibility of effectively assessing holistic movements, while multi-sensor devices offer the ability to obtain more output metrics.</abstract><type>Journal Article</type><journal>Sports Medicine</journal><volume/><journalNumber/><paginationStart/><paginationEnd/><publisher>Springer Science and Business Media LLC</publisher><placeOfPublication/><isbnPrint/><isbnElectronic/><issnPrint>0112-1642</issnPrint><issnElectronic>1179-2035</issnElectronic><keywords/><publishedDay>0</publishedDay><publishedMonth>0</publishedMonth><publishedYear>0</publishedYear><publishedDate>0001-01-01</publishedDate><doi>10.1007/s40279-023-01905-1</doi><url>http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40279-023-01905-1</url><notes/><college>COLLEGE NANME</college><department>Science and Engineering - Faculty</department><CollegeCode>COLLEGE CODE</CollegeCode><DepartmentCode>FGSEN</DepartmentCode><institution>Swansea University</institution><apcterm>SU Library paid the OA fee (TA Institutional Deal)</apcterm><funders>Swansea University. TAS has received financial support from a project sponsor, Polar Electro Oy. However, no specific sources of funding were used to assist in the preparation of this article.</funders><projectreference/><lastEdited>2023-09-15T15:12:13.9759927</lastEdited><Created>2023-08-09T08:56:08.5615014</Created><path><level id="1">Faculty of Science and Engineering</level><level id="2">School of Engineering and Applied Sciences - Sport and Exercise Sciences</level></path><authors><author><firstname>Alex</firstname><surname>Swain</surname><order>1</order></author><author><firstname>Melitta</firstname><surname>McNarry</surname><orcid>0000-0003-0813-7477</orcid><order>2</order></author><author><firstname>Adam W. H.</firstname><surname>Runacres</surname><orcid>0000-0002-8251-2805</orcid><order>3</order></author><author><firstname>Kelly</firstname><surname>Mackintosh</surname><orcid>0000-0003-0355-6357</orcid><order>4</order></author></authors><documents><document><filename>64059__28547__a58e22b5003546539f17fad7d3fad8a6.pdf</filename><originalFilename>64059.VOR.pdf</originalFilename><uploaded>2023-09-15T15:10:32.7525204</uploaded><type>Output</type><contentLength>1192373</contentLength><contentType>application/pdf</contentType><version>Version of Record</version><cronfaStatus>true</cronfaStatus><documentNotes>© The Author(s) 2023. Distributed under the terms of a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (CC BY 4.0).</documentNotes><copyrightCorrect>true</copyrightCorrect><language>eng</language><licence>https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</licence></document></documents><OutputDurs/></rfc1807>
spelling	v2 64059 2023-08-09 The Role of Multi-Sensor Measurement in the Assessment of Movement Quality: A Systematic Review e58af411e7a9cdf4197ff81cad1eb321 Alex Swain Alex Swain true false 062f5697ff59f004bc8c713955988398 0000-0003-0813-7477 Melitta McNarry Melitta McNarry true false bdb20e3f31bcccf95c7bc116070c4214 0000-0003-0355-6357 Kelly Mackintosh Kelly Mackintosh true false 2023-08-09 FGSEN Background: Movement quality is typically assessed by drawing comparisons against predetermined movement standards. Movements are often discretely scored or labelled against pre-set criteria, though movement quality can also be evaluated using motion-related measurements (e.g., spatio-temporal parameters and kinematic variables). Wearable technology has the potential to measure and assess movement quality and offer valuable, practical feedback. Objectives: A systematic approach was taken to examine the benefits associated with multi-sensor and multiple wearable-device usage, compared with unimodal applications, when assessing movement quality. Consequently, this review considers the additional variables and features that could be obtained through multi-sensor devices for use in movement analyses. Processing methods and applications of the various configurations were also explored. Methods: Articles were included within this review if they were written in English, specifically studied the use of wearable sensors to assess movement quality, and were published between January 2010 and December 2022. Of the 62,635 articles initially identified, 27 papers were included in this review. The quality of included studies was determined using a modified Downs and Black checklist, with 24/27 high quality. Results: Fifteen of the 27 included studies used a classification approach, 11 used a measurement approach, and one used both methods. Accelerometers featured in all 27 studies, in isolation (n = 5), with a gyroscope (n = 9), or with both a gyroscope and a magnetometer (n = 13). Sampling frequencies across all studies ranged from 50 to 200 Hz. The most common classification methods were traditional feature-based classifiers (n = 5) and support vector machines (SVM; n = 5). Sensor fusion featured in six of the 16 classification studies and nine of the 12 measurement studies, with the Madgwick algorithm most prevalent (n = 7). Conclusions: This systematic review highlights the differences between the applications and processing methods associated with the use of unimodal and multi-sensor wearable devices when assessing movement quality. Further, the use of multiple devices appears to increase the feasibility of effectively assessing holistic movements, while multi-sensor devices offer the ability to obtain more output metrics. Journal Article Sports Medicine Springer Science and Business Media LLC 0112-1642 1179-2035 0 0 0 0001-01-01 10.1007/s40279-023-01905-1 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40279-023-01905-1 COLLEGE NANME Science and Engineering - Faculty COLLEGE CODE FGSEN Swansea University SU Library paid the OA fee (TA Institutional Deal) Swansea University. TAS has received financial support from a project sponsor, Polar Electro Oy. However, no specific sources of funding were used to assist in the preparation of this article. 2023-09-15T15:12:13.9759927 2023-08-09T08:56:08.5615014 Faculty of Science and Engineering School of Engineering and Applied Sciences - Sport and Exercise Sciences Alex Swain 1 Melitta McNarry 0000-0003-0813-7477 2 Adam W. H. Runacres 0000-0002-8251-2805 3 Kelly Mackintosh 0000-0003-0355-6357 4 64059__28547__a58e22b5003546539f17fad7d3fad8a6.pdf 64059.VOR.pdf 2023-09-15T15:10:32.7525204 Output 1192373 application/pdf Version of Record true © The Author(s) 2023. Distributed under the terms of a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (CC BY 4.0). true eng https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
title	The Role of Multi-Sensor Measurement in the Assessment of Movement Quality: A Systematic Review
spellingShingle	The Role of Multi-Sensor Measurement in the Assessment of Movement Quality: A Systematic Review Alex Swain Melitta McNarry Kelly Mackintosh
title_short	The Role of Multi-Sensor Measurement in the Assessment of Movement Quality: A Systematic Review
title_full	The Role of Multi-Sensor Measurement in the Assessment of Movement Quality: A Systematic Review
title_fullStr	The Role of Multi-Sensor Measurement in the Assessment of Movement Quality: A Systematic Review
title_full_unstemmed	The Role of Multi-Sensor Measurement in the Assessment of Movement Quality: A Systematic Review
title_sort	The Role of Multi-Sensor Measurement in the Assessment of Movement Quality: A Systematic Review
author_id_str_mv	e58af411e7a9cdf4197ff81cad1eb321 062f5697ff59f004bc8c713955988398 bdb20e3f31bcccf95c7bc116070c4214
author_id_fullname_str_mv	e58af411e7a9cdf4197ff81cad1eb321_*_Alex Swain 062f5697ff59f004bc8c713955988398__Melitta McNarry bdb20e3f31bcccf95c7bc116070c4214_**_Kelly Mackintosh
author	Alex Swain Melitta McNarry Kelly Mackintosh
author2	Alex Swain Melitta McNarry Adam W. H. Runacres Kelly Mackintosh
format	Journal article
container_title	Sports Medicine
institution	Swansea University
issn	0112-1642 1179-2035
doi_str_mv	10.1007/s40279-023-01905-1
publisher	Springer Science and Business Media LLC
college_str	Faculty of Science and Engineering
hierarchytype
hierarchy_top_id	facultyofscienceandengineering
hierarchy_top_title	Faculty of Science and Engineering
hierarchy_parent_id	facultyofscienceandengineering
hierarchy_parent_title	Faculty of Science and Engineering
department_str	School of Engineering and Applied Sciences - Sport and Exercise Sciences{{{_:::_}}}Faculty of Science and Engineering{{{_:::_}}}School of Engineering and Applied Sciences - Sport and Exercise Sciences
url	http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40279-023-01905-1
document_store_str	1
active_str	0
description	Background: Movement quality is typically assessed by drawing comparisons against predetermined movement standards. Movements are often discretely scored or labelled against pre-set criteria, though movement quality can also be evaluated using motion-related measurements (e.g., spatio-temporal parameters and kinematic variables). Wearable technology has the potential to measure and assess movement quality and offer valuable, practical feedback. Objectives: A systematic approach was taken to examine the benefits associated with multi-sensor and multiple wearable-device usage, compared with unimodal applications, when assessing movement quality. Consequently, this review considers the additional variables and features that could be obtained through multi-sensor devices for use in movement analyses. Processing methods and applications of the various configurations were also explored. Methods: Articles were included within this review if they were written in English, specifically studied the use of wearable sensors to assess movement quality, and were published between January 2010 and December 2022. Of the 62,635 articles initially identified, 27 papers were included in this review. The quality of included studies was determined using a modified Downs and Black checklist, with 24/27 high quality. Results: Fifteen of the 27 included studies used a classification approach, 11 used a measurement approach, and one used both methods. Accelerometers featured in all 27 studies, in isolation (n = 5), with a gyroscope (n = 9), or with both a gyroscope and a magnetometer (n = 13). Sampling frequencies across all studies ranged from 50 to 200 Hz. The most common classification methods were traditional feature-based classifiers (n = 5) and support vector machines (SVM; n = 5). Sensor fusion featured in six of the 16 classification studies and nine of the 12 measurement studies, with the Madgwick algorithm most prevalent (n = 7). Conclusions: This systematic review highlights the differences between the applications and processing methods associated with the use of unimodal and multi-sensor wearable devices when assessing movement quality. Further, the use of multiple devices appears to increase the feasibility of effectively assessing holistic movements, while multi-sensor devices offer the ability to obtain more output metrics.
published_date	0001-01-01T15:12:15Z
_version_	1777113115142389760
score	11.016235

The Role of Multi-Sensor Measurement in the Assessment of Movement Quality: A Systematic Review

Similar Items