Perri Thomas, Reid Machar, Murphy Alistair, Howle Kieran, Duffield Rob
School of Sport, Exercise and Rehabilitation, Faculty of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Sports Science and Sports Medicine Unit, Tennis Australia, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
J Sports Sci. 2022 May;40(10):1168-1174. doi: 10.1080/02640414.2022.2056365. Epub 2022 Mar 23.
This study analysed the accuracy of a prototype algorithm for tennis stroke detection from wearable technology. Strokes from junior-elite tennis players over 10 matches were analysed. Players wore a GPS unit containing an accelerometer, gyroscope and magnetometer. Manufacturer-developed algorithms determined stoke type and count (forehands, backhands, serves and other). Matches were video recorded to manually code ball contacts and shadow swing events for forehands, backhands and serves and further by stroke classifications (i.e., drive, volley, slice, end-range). Comparisons between algorithm and coding were analysed via ANOVA and Bland-Altman plots at the match-level and error rates for specific stroke-types. No significant differences existed for stroke count between the algorithm and manual coding ( > 0.05). Significant ( < 0.0001) overestimation of "Other" strokes were observed from the algorithm, with no difference in groundstrokes and serves ( > 0.05). Serves had the highest accuracy of all stroke types (≥98%). Forehand and backhand "drives" were the most accurate (>86%), with volleys mostly undetected (58-60%) and slices and end-range strokes likely misclassified (49-51%). The prototype algorithm accurately quantifies serves and forehand and backhand "drives" and serves. However, underestimations of shadow swings and overestimations of "other" strokes suggests strokes with reduced trunk rotation have poorer detection accuracy.
本研究分析了一种用于从可穿戴技术检测网球击球动作的原型算法的准确性。分析了青少年精英网球运动员在10场比赛中的击球动作。运动员佩戴了一个包含加速度计、陀螺仪和磁力计的GPS设备。制造商开发的算法确定击球类型和次数(正手、反手、发球和其他)。比赛进行了视频录制,以便手动编码正手、反手和发球的球接触和空挥动作,并进一步按击球分类(即平击、截击、切削、底线击球)进行编码。通过方差分析和布兰德-奥特曼图在比赛层面分析算法与编码之间的比较以及特定击球类型的错误率。算法与手动编码之间的击球次数不存在显著差异(>0.05)。从算法中观察到“其他”击球动作存在显著(<0.0001)高估,而底线击球和发球动作没有差异(>0.05)。发球动作在所有击球类型中准确率最高(≥98%)。正手和反手“平击”动作最准确(>86%),截击动作大多未被检测到(58 - 60%),切削和底线击球动作可能被错误分类(49 - 51%)。该原型算法能够准确量化发球动作以及正手和反手“平击”动作。然而,对空挥动作的低估和对“其他”击球动作的高估表明,躯干旋转减少的击球动作检测准确率较低。