Are Wearable Sensors Valid and Reliable for Studying the Baseball Pitching Motion? An Independent Comparison With Marker-Based Motion Capture

Abstract

Background: In recent years, the prevalence of medial ulnar collateral ligament injuries has increased in throwers of all ages and skill levels. The motusBASEBALL sensor possesses an inertial measurement unit (IMU) that has been developed and applied to the throwing arm to allow for measurements of several objective parameters, which may prove beneficial for monitoring, rehabilitation, and injury prevention in the throwing athlete. However, the reliability, consistency, and validity of the IMU have not been independently assessed. Purpose: To evaluate the reliability, consistency, and validity of the motusBASEBALL sensor compared with the historic gold standard of marker-based motion capture. Study Design: Controlled laboratory study. Methods: A total of 10 healthy male baseball athletes with varsity-level high school experience volunteered to participate in this study. Participants were fitted with 37 retroreflective markers for motion capture and the motusBASEBALL IMU sensor. Participants threw 5 fastballs at maximum effort, with measurements recorded simultaneously by motion capture and the IMU. Arm slot, arm speed, arm stress, and shoulder rotation were measured and compared. Results: Of the 4 metrics generated by the IMU, significant differences were found for 3 of the throwing metrics compared with motion capture including arm slot (5.0°± 6.1°; P = .037), elbow varus torque (9.4 ± 12.0 N·m; P = .037), and shoulder rotation (6.3°± 6.1°; P = .014). Arm speed did not demonstrate a statistically significant difference (29.2 ± 96.8 rpm; P = .375). The IMU consistently underreported pitching performance values. Shoulder rotation exhibited excellent reliability with <5° of error, and arm slot demonstrated good reliability with <10° of error. Arm stress and arm speed were less reliable. Conclusion: The IMU was not accurate or valid for arm slot, arm stress, and shoulder rotation compared with marker-based motion capture. It was relatively accurate for arm speed. Despite its lack of validity, it was consistent and reliable for arm speed and shoulder rotation and relatively reliable for arm slot and arm stress. Caution should be used when comparing values provided by this IMU to the gold standard of marker-based motion capture. Clinical Relevance: IMU technology has potential to be used in monitoring, rehabilitation, and injury prevention in throwing athletes if valid. This study demonstrates that the values provided by the IMU should not be considered equivalent to those generated by the gold standard of marker-based motion capture; however, there may still be a role for this technology when relying on its internal consistency for intrathrower comparisons and tracking.

Are 4D Motion Sensors Valid and Reliable for Studying Baseball Pitching?

“…No other studies have assessed the validity of this IMU system. Boddy et al 3 found the motusBASEBALL sensor to lack validity for all 4 pitching performance metrics, whereas Camp et al 9 found reasonable validity for arm speed. Both studies observed that the IMU underreported metrics compared with motion capture (39%-80%), where it was observed that the 4D Motion IMU sensors overreported most metrics.…”

“…Marker locations are outlined in our previous study. 9 All markers were placed directly onto the skin. The markers were secured using double-sided tape to allow for unrestricted movement.…”

“…35 The motusBASEBALL sensor (Motus Global), which utilizes a single IMU positioned at the elbow, was found to be inaccurate for 3 of the 4 provided metrics compared with motion capture. 9 Because of the high-speed nature of the baseball pitch, the validity of each IMU system needs to be assessed.…”

Review on Wearable Technology in Sports: Concepts, Challenges and Opportunities

“…In their study on high school male baseball players, Camp et al compared markerbased motion capture with the motusBASEBALL sensor to analyze baseball throws [120]. Wearing compression sleeves with the IMU positioned on the medial elbow, they performed five fast throws.…”

Changes in Elbow Stress and Ball Velocity During Reduced Effort Pitching: A Marker-Based Motion Capture Analysis

“…Each was given as much time as needed to warm up before throwing off a pitching mound. As fully described previously, 4 participants were outfitted with retroreflective markers as follows (Figure 1): on the throwing arm (index metacarpal, third metacarpal, fifth metacarpal, radial and ulnar styloids, medial and lateral epicondyles, acromioclavicular joint), on the nonthrowing arm (acromioclavicular joint, lateral epicondyle, carpals), centrally (C7 and T10 spinous processes, manubrium, xiphoid process), and bilaterally (calcaneus, lateral malleolus, midfoot between the second and third metatarsals, tibia, lateral femoral epicondyle, femur, anterior and posterior iliac spine, sacrum). Static data collection was obtained with the pitcher positioned with his forearms in an anatomic neutral position with additional markers placed bilaterally on the medial femoral condyles and medial malleoli.…”