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

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 parame...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Sports medicine (Auckland) 2023-12, Vol.53 (12), p.2477-2504
Hauptverfasser: Swain, T. Alexander, McNarry, Melitta A., Runacres, Adam W. H., Mackintosh, Kelly A.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 2504
container_issue 12
container_start_page 2477
container_title Sports medicine (Auckland)
container_volume 53
creator Swain, T. Alexander
McNarry, Melitta A.
Runacres, Adam W. H.
Mackintosh, Kelly A.
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.
doi_str_mv 10.1007/s40279-023-01905-1
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_10687099</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2899164249</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c452t-6d1a466f90e18c2e1da8ea55ffd8dfca1874e5a18d0f4e6648ee1eaef9370fe23</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kU9v1DAQxS0EokvhC3CKxIVLYMaxHZsLWlXlj9QK0ZazZZJx6yqJi50s2m-Pt6lAcOA00szvPc3MY-wlwhsEaN9mAbw1NfCmBjQga3zENoilxaGRj9kGEHmNSvAj9iznWwCQWvCn7KhpldGtUhtmr26ouogDVdFX58swh_qSphxTdU4uL4lGmuYqTNVcuG3OlPN950DH3Tr9urghzPt31ba63OeZRjeHrrqgXaCfz9kT74ZMLx7qMfv24fTq5FN99uXj55PtWd0Jyeda9eiEUt4Aoe44Ye80OSm973XvO4e6FSRL6cELUkpoIiRH3jQteOLNMXu_-t4t30fqu7JXcoO9S2F0aW-jC_bvyRRu7HXcWQSlWzCmOLx-cEjxx0J5tmPIHQ2Dmygu2XKtBEpluCzoq3_Q27ikqdxXKGMOHxcHQ75SXYo5J_K_t0GwhwDtGqAtAdr7AC0WUbOKcoGna0p_rP-j-gU2C53q</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2899164249</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The Role of Multi-Sensor Measurement in the Assessment of Movement Quality: A Systematic Review</title><source>Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals</source><creator>Swain, T. Alexander ; McNarry, Melitta A. ; Runacres, Adam W. H. ; Mackintosh, Kelly A.</creator><creatorcontrib>Swain, T. Alexander ; McNarry, Melitta A. ; Runacres, Adam W. H. ; Mackintosh, Kelly A.</creatorcontrib><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.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0112-1642</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1179-2035</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s40279-023-01905-1</identifier><identifier>PMID: 37698766</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Cham: Springer International Publishing</publisher><subject>Classification ; Exercise ; Feedback ; Kinematics ; Medicine ; Medicine &amp; Public Health ; Physical fitness ; Reviews ; Sensors ; Sports Medicine ; Systematic Review ; Wearable computers</subject><ispartof>Sports medicine (Auckland), 2023-12, Vol.53 (12), p.2477-2504</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2023</rights><rights>Copyright Springer Nature B.V. Dec 2023</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c452t-6d1a466f90e18c2e1da8ea55ffd8dfca1874e5a18d0f4e6648ee1eaef9370fe23</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c452t-6d1a466f90e18c2e1da8ea55ffd8dfca1874e5a18d0f4e6648ee1eaef9370fe23</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-8251-2805 ; 0000-0003-3142-2399 ; 0000-0003-0813-7477 ; 0000-0003-0355-6357</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s40279-023-01905-1$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40279-023-01905-1$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,776,780,881,27903,27904,41467,42536,51297</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Swain, T. Alexander</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McNarry, Melitta A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Runacres, Adam W. H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mackintosh, Kelly A.</creatorcontrib><title>The Role of Multi-Sensor Measurement in the Assessment of Movement Quality: A Systematic Review</title><title>Sports medicine (Auckland)</title><addtitle>Sports Med</addtitle><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.</description><subject>Classification</subject><subject>Exercise</subject><subject>Feedback</subject><subject>Kinematics</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine &amp; Public Health</subject><subject>Physical fitness</subject><subject>Reviews</subject><subject>Sensors</subject><subject>Sports Medicine</subject><subject>Systematic Review</subject><subject>Wearable computers</subject><issn>0112-1642</issn><issn>1179-2035</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2023</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>C6C</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kU9v1DAQxS0EokvhC3CKxIVLYMaxHZsLWlXlj9QK0ZazZZJx6yqJi50s2m-Pt6lAcOA00szvPc3MY-wlwhsEaN9mAbw1NfCmBjQga3zENoilxaGRj9kGEHmNSvAj9iznWwCQWvCn7KhpldGtUhtmr26ouogDVdFX58swh_qSphxTdU4uL4lGmuYqTNVcuG3OlPN950DH3Tr9urghzPt31ba63OeZRjeHrrqgXaCfz9kT74ZMLx7qMfv24fTq5FN99uXj55PtWd0Jyeda9eiEUt4Aoe44Ye80OSm973XvO4e6FSRL6cELUkpoIiRH3jQteOLNMXu_-t4t30fqu7JXcoO9S2F0aW-jC_bvyRRu7HXcWQSlWzCmOLx-cEjxx0J5tmPIHQ2Dmygu2XKtBEpluCzoq3_Q27ikqdxXKGMOHxcHQ75SXYo5J_K_t0GwhwDtGqAtAdr7AC0WUbOKcoGna0p_rP-j-gU2C53q</recordid><startdate>20231201</startdate><enddate>20231201</enddate><creator>Swain, T. Alexander</creator><creator>McNarry, Melitta A.</creator><creator>Runacres, Adam W. H.</creator><creator>Mackintosh, Kelly A.</creator><general>Springer International Publishing</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>C6C</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>4T-</scope><scope>7QP</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7TS</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8251-2805</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3142-2399</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0813-7477</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0355-6357</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20231201</creationdate><title>The Role of Multi-Sensor Measurement in the Assessment of Movement Quality: A Systematic Review</title><author>Swain, T. Alexander ; McNarry, Melitta A. ; Runacres, Adam W. H. ; Mackintosh, Kelly A.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c452t-6d1a466f90e18c2e1da8ea55ffd8dfca1874e5a18d0f4e6648ee1eaef9370fe23</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2023</creationdate><topic>Classification</topic><topic>Exercise</topic><topic>Feedback</topic><topic>Kinematics</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine &amp; Public Health</topic><topic>Physical fitness</topic><topic>Reviews</topic><topic>Sensors</topic><topic>Sports Medicine</topic><topic>Systematic Review</topic><topic>Wearable computers</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Swain, T. Alexander</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McNarry, Melitta A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Runacres, Adam W. H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mackintosh, Kelly A.</creatorcontrib><collection>Springer Nature OA Free Journals</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Docstoc</collection><collection>Calcium &amp; Calcified Tissue Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Physical Education Index</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Sports medicine (Auckland)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Swain, T. Alexander</au><au>McNarry, Melitta A.</au><au>Runacres, Adam W. H.</au><au>Mackintosh, Kelly A.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The Role of Multi-Sensor Measurement in the Assessment of Movement Quality: A Systematic Review</atitle><jtitle>Sports medicine (Auckland)</jtitle><stitle>Sports Med</stitle><date>2023-12-01</date><risdate>2023</risdate><volume>53</volume><issue>12</issue><spage>2477</spage><epage>2504</epage><pages>2477-2504</pages><issn>0112-1642</issn><eissn>1179-2035</eissn><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><cop>Cham</cop><pub>Springer International Publishing</pub><pmid>37698766</pmid><doi>10.1007/s40279-023-01905-1</doi><tpages>28</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8251-2805</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3142-2399</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0813-7477</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0355-6357</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0112-1642
ispartof Sports medicine (Auckland), 2023-12, Vol.53 (12), p.2477-2504
issn 0112-1642
1179-2035
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_10687099
source Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals
subjects Classification
Exercise
Feedback
Kinematics
Medicine
Medicine & Public Health
Physical fitness
Reviews
Sensors
Sports Medicine
Systematic Review
Wearable computers
title The Role of Multi-Sensor Measurement in the Assessment of Movement Quality: A Systematic Review
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-24T02%3A10%3A32IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20Role%20of%20Multi-Sensor%20Measurement%20in%20the%20Assessment%20of%20Movement%20Quality:%20A%20Systematic%20Review&rft.jtitle=Sports%20medicine%20(Auckland)&rft.au=Swain,%20T.%20Alexander&rft.date=2023-12-01&rft.volume=53&rft.issue=12&rft.spage=2477&rft.epage=2504&rft.pages=2477-2504&rft.issn=0112-1642&rft.eissn=1179-2035&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s40279-023-01905-1&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2899164249%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2899164249&rft_id=info:pmid/37698766&rfr_iscdi=true