Development and evaluation of a sensory panel for collecting reliable player perceptions of third-generation synthetic turf football surfaces

Abstract

Perceptions of synthetic surfaces used in football can vary considerably between players, and obtaining reliable feedback is challenging. The aim of this study was to develop a suitable process and evaluate the merits of establishing a sensory panel to assess the subjective attributes of third generation synthetic turf surfaces (3G turf) used in football. Focus groups with 12 male and 13 female footballers were conducted on an outdoor 3G turf pitch to develop a common language to describe sensory feedback related to player–surface interactions. Post-session analysis revealed two main themes related to player–surface interactions: hardness and grip. These themes were broken down further into five sensory attributes (Movement Speed, Slip, Movement Confidence, Leg Shock and Give) which were investigated further in an indoor test area containing ten 3G turf surfaces with controlled surface properties. A panel consisting of 18 University footballers (11 male and 7 female) undertook a screening and training session to refine the language associated with the sensory attributes and become familiar with the testing protocol. During a final evaluation session, players were asked to discriminate between surfaces using the paired comparison method for each of the sensory attributes. Player consistency remained similar between the screening and evaluation sessions whilst the panel’s ability to discriminate between surfaces improved during the evaluation session. Sensory training can therefore be a useful approach to aid players in differentiating between surfaces and lead to a greater understanding of athlete perceptions of surface attributes.

Comparison of player perceptions to mechanical measurements of third generation synthetic turf football surfaces

“…Ten 3G turf surfaces were constructed in an indoor testing area to ensure surface properties were controlled and not influenced by environmental conditions [30]. Five of these surfaces were designed to explore the agreement between outputs from the RTT and player perception and the remaining five to explore the agreement between outputs from the AAA and player perception.…”

“…The instrumentation consisted of a strain gauge torque sensor, calibrated using a digital torque calibration analyser to a resolution of 0.01 Nm and accuracy of ± 0.10 Nm, and Fig. 2 Layout of the ten lane indoor surface testing area used for player perception and mechanical assessments of the surfaces [30]. Five of the surfaces were designed to explore the agreement between outputs from the RTT and player perception and the remaining five to explore the agreement between the AAA and player perception.…”

“…The field test requirements for FIFA Quality and Quality Pro surfaces are provided for comparison. Adapted from [30] SA highlighted the current algorithm to under-estimate Vertical Deformation [8]. The new algorithm started by identifying the peak force.…”

“…Little research is available regarding how players perceive specific surface properties under-foot [29]. To address this, a recent study identified the language typically used by players to describe their sensory feelings when interacting with football surfaces and demonstrated the ability of players to reliably detect sensory differences across a range of controlled 3G turf surfaces [30]. This study using a trained panel approach, where each player initially underwent training to distinguish and evaluate perceived surface properties.…”

“…Following on from the development of a reliable methodology to assess player perceptions of 3G turf surfaces [30], the first objective of this study was to investigate the agreement between the outputs from the RTT and AAA player-surface interaction tests (standard configuration [3] and modified to improve biofidelity) and player perceptions across various rubber crumb (SBR) infilled 3G turfs with differing surface properties. The second objective was to identify the RTT and AAA test configurations and output variables that provided the strongest agreement with player perceptions of the surfaces.…”