M. Taberner, J. O'keefe, David Flower, J. Phillips, G. Close, D. Cohen, C. Richter, C. Carling
{"title":"位置跟踪技术的互换性;我们能合并数据吗?","authors":"M. Taberner, J. O'keefe, David Flower, J. Phillips, G. Close, D. Cohen, C. Richter, C. Carling","doi":"10.1080/24733938.2019.1634279","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Purpose: The purpose of this study was to assess the interchangeability of position tracking metrics obtained using global positioning systems (GPS) versus those obtained by a semi-automatic high definition (HD) optical camera system. Methods: Data was collected from a cohort of 29 elite football players (age: 23.1 ± 5.1 years, height: 180.4 ± 5.8 cm, mass: 74.6 ± 6.7 kg) in four matches played in four different stadiums. In two matches 10 Hz GPS (GPS-1, StatSports, Belfast, UK) were used, while in the other two matches augmented 10 Hz GPS (GPS-2, StatSports, Belfast, UK) were used. All four matches were analysed concomitantly using six semi-automated HD motion cameras sampling at 25 Hz (TRACAB, Chyronhego, New York, USA). Results: Mean bias was between 6% and 10% for GPS-1 and 1–4% for GPS-2, respectively. No proportional bias was found (p > 0.184). The SEE within calibration functions (expressed in % to mean) was between 5% and 22% for GPS-1 and 4–14% for GPS-2. While some significant differences existed between GPS-1 and TRACAB (total distance and high-speed), positional tracking variables were highly correlated between GPS-1, GPS-2 and TRACAB (r2> 0.92) with GPS-2 displaying stronger correlations (> r2 = 0.96). Conclusion: In the present study augmented GPS technology (GPS-2) and the TRACAB camera system provided interchangeable measures of positional tracking metrics to allow concurrent assessment and monitoring of training and competition in football players. However, we recommend practitioners evaluate their own systems to identify where errors exist, calculate and apply the regression equations to confidently interchange data.","PeriodicalId":48512,"journal":{"name":"Science and Medicine in Football","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/24733938.2019.1634279","citationCount":"25","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Interchangeability of position tracking technologies; can we merge the data?\",\"authors\":\"M. Taberner, J. O'keefe, David Flower, J. Phillips, G. Close, D. Cohen, C. Richter, C. Carling\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/24733938.2019.1634279\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Purpose: The purpose of this study was to assess the interchangeability of position tracking metrics obtained using global positioning systems (GPS) versus those obtained by a semi-automatic high definition (HD) optical camera system. Methods: Data was collected from a cohort of 29 elite football players (age: 23.1 ± 5.1 years, height: 180.4 ± 5.8 cm, mass: 74.6 ± 6.7 kg) in four matches played in four different stadiums. In two matches 10 Hz GPS (GPS-1, StatSports, Belfast, UK) were used, while in the other two matches augmented 10 Hz GPS (GPS-2, StatSports, Belfast, UK) were used. All four matches were analysed concomitantly using six semi-automated HD motion cameras sampling at 25 Hz (TRACAB, Chyronhego, New York, USA). Results: Mean bias was between 6% and 10% for GPS-1 and 1–4% for GPS-2, respectively. No proportional bias was found (p > 0.184). The SEE within calibration functions (expressed in % to mean) was between 5% and 22% for GPS-1 and 4–14% for GPS-2. While some significant differences existed between GPS-1 and TRACAB (total distance and high-speed), positional tracking variables were highly correlated between GPS-1, GPS-2 and TRACAB (r2> 0.92) with GPS-2 displaying stronger correlations (> r2 = 0.96). Conclusion: In the present study augmented GPS technology (GPS-2) and the TRACAB camera system provided interchangeable measures of positional tracking metrics to allow concurrent assessment and monitoring of training and competition in football players. However, we recommend practitioners evaluate their own systems to identify where errors exist, calculate and apply the regression equations to confidently interchange data.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48512,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Science and Medicine in Football\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-01-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/24733938.2019.1634279\",\"citationCount\":\"25\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Science and Medicine in Football\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/24733938.2019.1634279\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"SPORT SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Science and Medicine in Football","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/24733938.2019.1634279","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SPORT SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 25
摘要
摘要目的:本研究的目的是评估使用全球定位系统(GPS)获得的位置跟踪指标与半自动高清晰度(HD)光学相机系统获得的位置跟踪指标的互换性。方法:选取年龄23.1±5.1岁,身高180.4±5.8 cm,体重74.6±6.7 kg的29名优秀足球运动员,在4个不同的体育场馆进行4场比赛。在两场比赛中使用了10hz GPS (GPS-1, StatSports,贝尔法斯特,英国),而在另外两场比赛中使用了增强10hz GPS (GPS-2, StatSports,贝尔法斯特,英国)。同时使用6台以25 Hz采样的半自动高清运动摄像机(TRACAB, Chyronhego, New York, USA)对所有4种匹配进行分析。结果:GPS-1和GPS-2的平均偏倚分别在6% - 10%和1-4%之间。未发现比例偏倚(p < 0.184)。校准函数内的SEE(以% to mean表示)在GPS-1和GPS-2中分别为5% - 22%和4-14%。GPS-1、GPS-2和TRACAB之间的位置跟踪变量(总距离和高速)存在显著差异,但GPS-1、GPS-2和TRACAB之间的位置跟踪变量相关性较高(r2> = 0.92),其中GPS-2相关性较强(> r2 = 0.96)。结论:在本研究中,增强型GPS技术(GPS-2)和TRACAB相机系统提供了可互换的位置跟踪指标,可以同时评估和监测足球运动员的训练和比赛。然而,我们建议从业者评估他们自己的系统,以确定错误存在的地方,计算和应用回归方程来自信地交换数据。
Interchangeability of position tracking technologies; can we merge the data?
ABSTRACT Purpose: The purpose of this study was to assess the interchangeability of position tracking metrics obtained using global positioning systems (GPS) versus those obtained by a semi-automatic high definition (HD) optical camera system. Methods: Data was collected from a cohort of 29 elite football players (age: 23.1 ± 5.1 years, height: 180.4 ± 5.8 cm, mass: 74.6 ± 6.7 kg) in four matches played in four different stadiums. In two matches 10 Hz GPS (GPS-1, StatSports, Belfast, UK) were used, while in the other two matches augmented 10 Hz GPS (GPS-2, StatSports, Belfast, UK) were used. All four matches were analysed concomitantly using six semi-automated HD motion cameras sampling at 25 Hz (TRACAB, Chyronhego, New York, USA). Results: Mean bias was between 6% and 10% for GPS-1 and 1–4% for GPS-2, respectively. No proportional bias was found (p > 0.184). The SEE within calibration functions (expressed in % to mean) was between 5% and 22% for GPS-1 and 4–14% for GPS-2. While some significant differences existed between GPS-1 and TRACAB (total distance and high-speed), positional tracking variables were highly correlated between GPS-1, GPS-2 and TRACAB (r2> 0.92) with GPS-2 displaying stronger correlations (> r2 = 0.96). Conclusion: In the present study augmented GPS technology (GPS-2) and the TRACAB camera system provided interchangeable measures of positional tracking metrics to allow concurrent assessment and monitoring of training and competition in football players. However, we recommend practitioners evaluate their own systems to identify where errors exist, calculate and apply the regression equations to confidently interchange data.