↓ Skip to main content

Evaluation of the Finis Swimsense® and the Garmin Swim™ activity monitors for swimming performance and stroke kinematics analysis

Overview of attention for article published in PLoS ONE, February 2017
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 (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
twitter
11 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Evaluation of the Finis Swimsense® and the Garmin Swim™ activity monitors for swimming performance and stroke kinematics analysis
Published in
PLoS ONE, February 2017
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0170902
Pubmed ID
Authors

Robert Mooney, Leo R. Quinlan, Gavin Corley, Alan Godfrey, Conor Osborough, Gearóid ÓLaighin

Abstract

The study aims were to evaluate the validity of two commercially available swimming activity monitors for quantifying temporal and kinematic swimming variables. Ten national level swimmers (5 male, 5 female; 15.3±1.3years; 164.8±12.9cm; 62.4±11.1kg; 425±66 FINA points) completed a set protocol comprising 1,500m of swimming involving all four competitive swimming strokes. Swimmers wore the Finis Swimsense and the Garmin Swim activity monitors throughout. The devices automatically identified stroke type, swim distance, lap time, stroke count, stroke rate, stroke length and average speed. Video recordings were also obtained and used as a criterion measure to evaluate performance. A significant positive correlation was found between the monitors and video for the identification of each of the four swim strokes (Garmin: X2 (3) = 31.292, p<0.05; Finis:X2 (3) = 33.004, p<0.05). No significant differences were found for swim distance measurements. Swimming laps performed in the middle of a swimming interval showed no significant difference from the criterion (Garmin: bias -0.065, 95% confidence intervals -3.828-6.920; Finis bias -0.02, 95% confidence intervals -3.095-3.142). However laps performed at the beginning and end of an interval were not as accurately timed. Additionally, a statistical difference was found for stroke count measurements in all but two occasions (p<0.05). These differences affect the accuracy of stroke rate, stroke length and average speed scores reported by the monitors, as all of these are derived from lap times and stroke counts. Both monitors were found to operate with a relatively similar performance level and appear suited for recreational use. However, issues with feature detection accuracy may be related to individual variances in stroke technique. It is reasonable to expect that this level of error would increase when the devices are used by recreational swimmers rather than elite swimmers. Further development to improve accuracy of feature detection algorithms, specifically for lap time and stroke count, would also increase their suitability within competitive settings.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 53 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 15%
Student > Bachelor 5 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 9%
Researcher 3 6%
Other 11 21%
Unknown 11 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 11 21%
Engineering 7 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 8%
Computer Science 4 8%
Other 9 17%
Unknown 12 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 37. 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 22 November 2017.
All research outputs
#373,819
of 12,177,594 outputs
Outputs from PLoS ONE
#7,456
of 133,728 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,235
of 327,813 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS ONE
#280
of 5,649 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,177,594 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 133,728 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 327,813 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5,649 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.