Format

Send to

Choose Destination

See 1 citation found by title matching your search:

J Biomech. 2014 Sep 22;47(12):3012-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2014.07.001. Epub 2014 Jul 10.

Comparison of discrete-point vs. dimensionality-reduction techniques for describing performance-related aspects of maximal vertical jumping.

Author information

1
Insight Centre Data Analytics, Dublin, Ireland; CLARITY: Centre for Sensor Web Technologies, Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland; Applied Sports Performance Research, School of Health and Human Performance, Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland; Sports Surgery Clinic, Santry Demense, Dublin 9, Ireland. Electronic address: chris.richter@dcu.ie.
2
Insight Centre Data Analytics, Dublin, Ireland; CLARITY: Centre for Sensor Web Technologies, Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland.
3
Insight Centre Data Analytics, Dublin, Ireland; Applied Sports Performance Research, School of Health and Human Performance, Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland; Sports Surgery Clinic, Santry Demense, Dublin 9, Ireland.
4
Insight Centre Data Analytics, Dublin, Ireland; Applied Sports Performance Research, School of Health and Human Performance, Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland.

Abstract

The aim of this study was to assess and compare the ability of discrete point analysis (DPA), functional principal component analysis (fPCA) and analysis of characterizing phases (ACP) to describe a dependent variable (jump height) using vertical ground reaction force curves captured during the propulsion phase of a countermovement jump. FPCA and ACP are continuous data analysis techniques that reduce the dimensionality of a data set by identifying phases of variation (key phases), which are used to generate subject scores that describe a subject's behavior. A stepwise multiple regression analysis was used to measure the ability to describe jump height of each data analysis technique. Findings indicated that the order of effectiveness (high to low) across the examined techniques was: ACP (99%), fPCA (78%) and DPA (21%). DPA was outperformed by fPCA and ACP because it can inadvertently compare unrelated features, does not analyze the whole data set and cannot examine important features that occur solely as a phase. ACP outperformed fPCA because it utilizes information within the combined magnitude-time domain, and identifies and examines key phases separately without the deleterious interaction of other key phases.

KEYWORDS:

Analysis of characterizing phases; Counter movement jump; Functional principal component analysis

PMID:
25059895
DOI:
10.1016/j.jbiomech.2014.07.001
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science
Loading ...
Support Center