A. Edelmann-Nusser, A. Raschke, A. Bentz, S. Montenbruck, Jürgen Edelmann-Nusser, M. Lames
{"title":"Validation of Sensor-Based Game Analysis Tools in Tennis","authors":"A. Edelmann-Nusser, A. Raschke, A. Bentz, S. Montenbruck, Jürgen Edelmann-Nusser, M. Lames","doi":"10.2478/ijcss-2019-0013","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Three inertial measurement unit (IMU) based tennis sensor systems from BABOLAT (PURE DRIVE PLAY, POP) and HEAD (Tennis Sensor) and a camera-based system (PlaySight) were tested with respect to the question whether the information about the number of strokes by swing type and spin type in training exercises and/or matches and the average as well as the maximum speed of the service per session are reliable. Subsequently, the question whether the mechanical properties of the BABOLAT PURE DRIVE PLAY racket are the same as the mechanical properties of the BABOLAT PURE DRIVE racket without IMU was addressed. For swing types in standard exercises the results are acceptable for forehand groundstrokes, backhand groundstrokes and services but not for volleys. In a match environment we find inacceptably high errors (>10%) for the number of strokes for forehand and completely inacceptable levels for volley. The wrist-based IMU of BABOLAT POP has not reached an acceptable accuracy at all. For spin types the results are acceptable. The large variances in service speed assessment between devices make it doubtful whether any of them may be used for the control of training processes aiming at increasing the average service speed The mechanical properties of the BABOLAT rackets with and without IMU are quite the same.","PeriodicalId":38466,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Computer Science in Sport","volume":"18 1","pages":"49 - 59"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Computer Science in Sport","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2478/ijcss-2019-0013","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Computer Science","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6
Abstract
Abstract Three inertial measurement unit (IMU) based tennis sensor systems from BABOLAT (PURE DRIVE PLAY, POP) and HEAD (Tennis Sensor) and a camera-based system (PlaySight) were tested with respect to the question whether the information about the number of strokes by swing type and spin type in training exercises and/or matches and the average as well as the maximum speed of the service per session are reliable. Subsequently, the question whether the mechanical properties of the BABOLAT PURE DRIVE PLAY racket are the same as the mechanical properties of the BABOLAT PURE DRIVE racket without IMU was addressed. For swing types in standard exercises the results are acceptable for forehand groundstrokes, backhand groundstrokes and services but not for volleys. In a match environment we find inacceptably high errors (>10%) for the number of strokes for forehand and completely inacceptable levels for volley. The wrist-based IMU of BABOLAT POP has not reached an acceptable accuracy at all. For spin types the results are acceptable. The large variances in service speed assessment between devices make it doubtful whether any of them may be used for the control of training processes aiming at increasing the average service speed The mechanical properties of the BABOLAT rackets with and without IMU are quite the same.
摘要对BABOLAT(PURE DRIVE PLAY,POP)和HEAD(tennis sensor)的三个基于惯性测量单元(IMU)的网球传感器系统以及一个基于相机的系统(PlaySight)进行了测试,以确定训练练习和/或比赛中按挥杆类型和旋转类型的击球次数信息会话是可靠的。随后,解决了BABOLAT PURE DRIVE PLAY球拍的机械性能是否与没有IMU的BABOLAT PURE DRIVE球拍的机械特性相同的问题。对于标准练习中的挥杆类型,正手滚地球、反手滚地球和发球的结果是可以接受的,但截击则不可以。在比赛环境中,我们发现正手击球次数的错误率高得令人无法接受(>10%),而凌空抽射的错误率则完全无法接受。BABOLAT POP基于手腕的IMU根本没有达到可接受的精度。对于自旋类型,结果是可以接受的。设备之间的服务速度评估差异很大,这使得人们怀疑它们中的任何一个是否可以用于控制旨在提高平均服务速度的训练过程。有IMU和没有IMU的BABOLAT球拍的机械性能完全相同。