↓ Skip to main content

Modelling Movement Energetics Using Global Positioning System Devices in Contact Team Sports: Limitations and Solutions

Overview of attention for article published in Sports Medicine, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
61 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
124 Mendeley
Title
Modelling Movement Energetics Using Global Positioning System Devices in Contact Team Sports: Limitations and Solutions
Published in
Sports Medicine, March 2018
DOI 10.1007/s40279-018-0899-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Adrian J. Gray, Kathleen Shorter, Cloe Cummins, Aron Murphy, Mark Waldron

Abstract

Quantifying the training and competition loads of players in contact team sports can be performed in a variety of ways, including kinematic, perceptual, heart rate or biochemical monitoring methods. Whilst these approaches provide data relevant for team sports practitioners and athletes, their application to a contact team sport setting can sometimes be challenging or illogical. Furthermore, these methods can generate large fragmented datasets, do not provide a single global measure of training load and cannot adequately quantify all key elements of performance in contact team sports. A previous attempt to address these limitations via the estimation of metabolic energy demand (global energy measurement) has been criticised for its inability to fully quantify the energetic costs of team sports, particularly during collisions. This is despite the seemingly unintentional misapplication of the model's principles to settings outside of its intended use. There are other hindrances to the application of such models, which are discussed herein, such as the data-handling procedures of Global Position System manufacturers and the unrealistic expectations of end users. Nevertheless, we propose an alternative energetic approach, based on Global Positioning System-derived data, to improve the assessment of mechanical load in contact team sports. We present a framework for the estimation of mechanical work performed during locomotor and contact events with the capacity to globally quantify the work done during training and matches.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 61 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 124 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 124 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 15%
Student > Master 16 13%
Researcher 14 11%
Student > Bachelor 11 9%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 6 5%
Other 24 19%
Unknown 35 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 56 45%
Computer Science 5 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 4%
Social Sciences 3 2%
Engineering 3 2%
Other 11 9%
Unknown 41 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 39. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 February 2019.
All research outputs
#1,015,519
of 24,831,063 outputs
Outputs from Sports Medicine
#894
of 2,870 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,924
of 335,201 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Sports Medicine
#23
of 60 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,831,063 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,870 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 55.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 335,201 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 60 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.