Validation of a commercially available inertial measurement unit for recording jump load in youth basketball players

Benson, Lauren C.; Tait, Tyler J; Befus, Kimberley; Choi, John K.; Hillson, Colin; Stilling, Carlyn; Grewal, Sagar; MacDonald, Kerry; Pasanen, Kati; Emery, Carolyn A.

doi:10.1080/02640414.2020.1737360

Cited by 23 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Training load or stress is within this context typically defined as the sum of external (training volume and intensity) and internal (physiological parameters and perceived exertion) loads combined [ 12 , 13 , 14 ]. Many of these studies have used wearable sensors to monitor the total exposure over time—during a training session, a period of training or a whole season, most often in team sports [ 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 ], and in running [ 14 , 19 , 20 ]. However, within the sports domain, numerous types of sports and activities involve shock impacts that may be harmful from just one or a limited number of impacts—alpine skiing, running, gymnastics, team sports such as soccer, volleyball, and different types of invasion sports such as rugby and football, to mention a few.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Use of Wearable Sensor Technology to Detect Shock Impacts in Sports and Occupational Settings: A Scoping Review

Eitzen

Renberg

Færevik

2021

Sensors

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Shock impacts during activity may cause damage to the joints, muscles, bones, or inner organs. To define thresholds for tolerable impacts, there is a need for methods that can accurately monitor shock impacts in real-life settings. Therefore, the main aim of this scoping review was to present an overview of existing methods for assessments of shock impacts using wearable sensor technology within two domains: sports and occupational settings. Online databases were used to identify papers published in 2010–2020, from which we selected 34 papers that used wearable sensor technology to measure shock impacts. No studies were found on occupational settings. For the sports domain, accelerometry was the dominant type of wearable sensor technology utilized, interpreting peak acceleration as a proxy for impact. Of the included studies, 28 assessed foot strike in running, head impacts in invasion and team sports, or different forms of jump landings or plyometric movements. The included studies revealed a lack of consensus regarding sensor placement and interpretation of the results. Furthermore, the identified high proportion of validation studies support previous concerns that wearable sensors at present are inadequate as a stand-alone method for valid and accurate data on shock impacts in the field.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Use of Wearable Sensor Technology to Detect Shock Impacts in Sports and Occupational Settings: A Scoping Review

Eitzen

Renberg

Færevik

2021

Sensors

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…the traditional definition of minutes played). This review identified a wide range of methods used to determine training duration in basketball, and a significant number of studies (n = 24) that failed to report how duration was defined and calculated [32,49,52,66,69,71,72,75,84,[92][93][94][95][96][97][98][99][100][101][102][103][104][105][106]. A commonly used description of duration methodology in basketball was defined in 1995 by McInnes et al [47], where total time was calculated as "all of the time that the subject was on the court, including all stoppages in play such as time-outs, free-throws and out-of-bounds, but excluding breaks between quarters, or time that the subject was substituted out of the game" [47].…”

Section: Methodology For Quantifying Durationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring Physical Demands in Basketball: An Explorative Systematic Review of Practices

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Measuring the physical work and resultant acute psychobiological responses of basketball can help to better understand and inform physical preparation models and improve overall athlete health and performance. Recent advancements in training load monitoring solutions have coincided with increases in the literature describing the physical demands of basketball, but there are currently no reviews that summarize all the available basketball research. Additionally, a thorough appraisal of the load monitoring methodologies and measures used in basketball is lacking in the current literature. This type of critical analysis would allow for consistent comparison between studies to better understand physical demands across the sport. Objectives The objective of this systematic review was to assess and critically evaluate the methods and technologies used for monitoring physical demands in competitive basketball athletes. We used the term 'training load' to encompass the physical demands of both training and game activities, with the latter assumed to provide a training stimulus as well. This review aimed to critique methodological inconsistencies, establish operational definitions specific to the sport, and make recommendations for basketball training load monitoring practice and reporting within the literature. Methods A systematic review of the literature was performed using EBSCO, PubMed, SCOPUS, and Web of Science to identify studies through March 2020. Electronic databases were searched using terms related to basketball and training load. Records were included if they used a competitive basketball population and incorporated a measure of training load. This systematic review was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO Registration # CRD42019123603), and approved under the National Basketball Association (NBA) Health Related Research Policy. Results Electronic and manual searches identified 122 papers that met the inclusion criteria. These studies reported the physical demands of basketball during training (n = 56), competition (n = 36), and both training and competition (n = 30). Physical demands were quantified with a measure of internal training load (n = 52), external training load (n = 29), or both internal and external measures (n = 41). These studies examined males (n = 76), females (n = 34), both male and female (n = 9), and a combination of youth (i.e. under 18 years, n = 37), adults (i.e. 18 years or older, n = 77), and both adults and youth (n = 4). Inconsistencies related to the reporting of competition level, methodology for recording duration, participant inclusion criteria, and validity of measurement systems were identified as key factors relating to the reporting of physical demands in basketball and summarized for each study. Conclusions This review comprehensively evaluated the current body of literature related to training load monitoring in basketball. Within this literature, there is a clear lack of alignment in applied practices and metho...

show abstract

“…As the VERT R recorded movement patterns, the data were transferred in real-time via Bluetooth 4.0 technology to an associated Apple iPad application (iPad Air 2, Apple, Cupertino, CA, USA; VTS Basic, Mayfonk Inc., Fort Lauderdale, FL, USA; VERTcoach, version 2.2.6, Mayfonk Inc., Fort Lauderdale, FL, USA), which processed the data using proprietary algorithms and reported the number and height of jumps over six inches (15.24 cm). The use of this device for recording jump count and jump height has been previously validated in youth basketball and youth and elite volleyball (Charlton et al, 2017;MacDonald et al, 2017;Skazalski et al, 2018;Benson et al, 2020b). The output variables were stored on and later accessed from a server (myVERT R BETA, Mayfonk Inc., Fort Lauderdale, FL, USA) maintained by the product manufacturer.…”

Section: Workload Monitoringmentioning

confidence: 99%

Magnitude, Frequency, and Accumulation: Workload Among Injured and Uninjured Youth Basketball Players

Benson

Owoeye

Räisänen

et al. 2021

Front. Sports Act. Living

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Overuse injuries are common in basketball. Wearable technology enables the workload to be monitored in sport settings. However, workload–injury models lack a biological basis both in the metrics recorded and how workload is accumulated. We introduce a new metric for monitoring workload: weighted jump height, where each jump height is weighted to represent the expected effect of the jump magnitude on damage to the tendon. The objectives of this study were to use principal components analysis to identify distinct modes of variation in all workload metrics accumulated over 1, 2, 3, and 4 weeks and to examine differences among the modes of variation in workload metrics between participants before the injury and uninjured participants. Forty-nine youth basketball players participated in their typical basketball practices and games, and lower extremity injuries were classified as patellar or Achilles tendinopathy, other overuse, or acute. An inertial measurement unit recorded the number and height of all jumps, and session rating of perceived exertion was recorded. The previous 1-, 2-, 3-, and 4-week workloads of jump count, jump height, weighted jump height, and session rating of perceived exertion were summed for each participant-week. Principal components analysis explained the variance in the accumulated workload variables. Using the retained principal components, the difference between the workload of injured participants in the week before the injury and the mean workload of uninjured participants was described for patellar or Achilles tendinopathy, overuse lower extremity injury, and any lower extremity injury. Participants with patellar or Achilles tendinopathy and overuse lower extremity injuries had a low workload magnitude for all variables in the 1, 2, 3, and 4 weeks before injury compared with the weeks before no injury. Participants with overuse lower extremity injuries and any lower extremity injury had a high previous 1-week workload for all variables along with a low previous 3- and 4-week jump count, jump height, and weighted jump height before injury compared with the weeks before no injury. Weighted jump height represents the cumulative damage experienced by tissues due to repetitive loads. Injured youth basketball athletes had a low previous 3- and 4-week workloads coupled with a high previous 1-week workload.

show abstract

Validation of a commercially available inertial measurement unit for recording jump load in youth basketball players

Cited by 23 publications

References 23 publications

The Use of Wearable Sensor Technology to Detect Shock Impacts in Sports and Occupational Settings: A Scoping Review

The Use of Wearable Sensor Technology to Detect Shock Impacts in Sports and Occupational Settings: A Scoping Review

Measuring Physical Demands in Basketball: An Explorative Systematic Review of Practices

Magnitude, Frequency, and Accumulation: Workload Among Injured and Uninjured Youth Basketball Players

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About