Augmented-reality swim goggles accurately and reliably measure swim performance metrics in recreational swimmers
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Swimmers commonly access performance metrics such as lap splits, distance, and pacing information between work bouts while they rest. Recently, a new category of tracking devices for swimming was introduced with the FORM Smart Swim Goggles (FORM Goggles). The goggles have a built-in see-through display and are capable of tracking and displaying distance, time splits, stroke, and pace metrics in real time using machine learning and augmented reality through a heads-up display. The purpose of this study was to assess the validity and reliability of the FORM Goggles compared with video analysis for stroke type, pool length count, pool length time, stroke rate, and stroke count in recreational swimmers and triathletes. Method: A total of 36 participants performed mixed swimming intervals in a 25-m pool across two identical 900-m swim sessions performed at comparable intensities with 1 week interval. The participants wore FORM Goggles during their swims, which detected the following five swim metrics: stroke type, pool length time, pool length count, stroke count, and stroke rate. Four video cameras were positioned on the pool edges to capture ground truth video footage, which was then manually labeled by three trained individuals. Mean (SD) differences between FORM Goggles and ground truth were calculated for the selected metrics for both sessions. The absolute mean difference and mean absolute percentage error were used to assess the differences of the FORM Goggles relative to ground truth. The test-retest reliability of the goggles was assessed using both relative and absolute reliability metrics. Results: < 0.001), pool length count accuracy of 99.8%, and mean differences (FORM Goggles-ground truth) for pool length time: -0.10 s (1.49); stroke count: -0.63 (1.82); and stroke rate: 0.19 strokes/min (3.23). The test-retest intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) values between the two test days were 0.793 for pool length time, 0.797 for stroke count, and 0.883 for stroke rate. Overall, for pool length time, the residuals were within ±1.0s for 65.3% of the total pool lengths, for stroke count within ±1 stroke for 62.6% of the total pool lengths, and for stroke rate within ±2 strokes/min for 66.40% of the total pool lengths. Conclusion: The FORM Goggles were found valid and reliable for the tracking of pool length time, pool length count, stroke count, stroke rate, and stroke type during freestyle, backstroke, and breaststroke swimming in recreational swimmers and triathletes when compared with video analysis. This opens perspectives for receiving real-time information on performance metrics during swimming.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».