↓ Skip to main content

The Use of Wearable Microsensors to Quantify Sport-Specific Movements

Overview of attention for article published in Sports Medicine, April 2015
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 (95th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
60 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
248 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
605 Mendeley
Title
The Use of Wearable Microsensors to Quantify Sport-Specific Movements
Published in
Sports Medicine, April 2015
DOI 10.1007/s40279-015-0332-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ryan Chambers, Tim J. Gabbett, Michael H. Cole, Adam Beard

Abstract

Microtechnology has allowed sport scientists to understand the locomotor demands of various sports. While wearable global positioning technology has been used to quantify the locomotor demands of sporting activities, microsensors (i.e. accelerometers, gyroscopes and magnetometers) embedded within the units also have the capability to detect sport-specific movements. The objective of this study was to determine the extent to which microsensors (also referred to as inertial measurement units and microelectromechanical sensors) have been utilised in quantifying sport-specific movements. A systematic review of the use of microsensors and associated terms to evaluate sport-specific movements was conducted; permutations of the terms used included alternate names of the various technologies used, their applications and different applied environments. Studies for this review were published between 2008 and 2014 and were identified through a systematic search of six electronic databases: Academic Search Complete, CINAHL, PsycINFO, PubMed, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science. Articles were required to have used athlete-mounted sensors to detect sport-specific movements (e.g. rugby union tackle) rather than sensors mounted to equipment and monitoring generic movement patterns. A total of 2395 studies were initially retrieved from the six databases and 737 results were removed as they were duplicates, review articles or conference abstracts. After screening titles and abstracts of the remaining papers, the full text of 47 papers was reviewed, resulting in the inclusion of 28 articles that met the set criteria around the application of microsensors for detecting sport-specific movements. Eight articles addressed the use of microsensors within individual sports, team sports provided seven results, water sports provided eight articles, and five articles addressed the use of microsensors in snow sports. All articles provided evidence of the ability of microsensors to detect sport-specific movements. Results demonstrated varying purposes for the use of microsensors, encompassing the detection of movement and movement frequency, the identification of movement errors and the assessment of forces during collisions. This systematic review has highlighted the use of microsensors to detect sport-specific movements across a wide range of individual and team sports. The ability of microsensors to capture sport-specific movements emphasises the capability of this technology to provide further detail on athlete demands and performance. However, there was mixed evidence on the ability of microsensors to quantify some movements (e.g. tackling within rugby union, rugby league and Australian rules football). Given these contrasting results, further research is required to validate the ability of wearable microsensors containing accelerometers, gyroscopes and magnetometers to detect tackles in collision sports, as well as other contact events such as the ruck, maul and scrum in rugby union.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 60 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 605 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Spain 2 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Singapore 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 593 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 109 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 108 18%
Student > Bachelor 67 11%
Researcher 44 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 36 6%
Other 112 19%
Unknown 129 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 242 40%
Engineering 77 13%
Computer Science 24 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 23 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 20 3%
Other 61 10%
Unknown 158 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 42. 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 10 September 2020.
All research outputs
#869,772
of 23,510,717 outputs
Outputs from Sports Medicine
#777
of 2,743 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,712
of 265,512 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Sports Medicine
#17
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,510,717 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,743 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 52.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 265,512 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.