A Wearable-Sensor System with AI Technology for Real-Time Biomechanical Feedback Training in Hammer Throw
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Developing real-time biomechanical feedback systems for in-field applications will transfer human motor skills' learning/training from subjective (experience-based) to objective (science-based). The translation will greatly improve the efficiency of human motor skills' learning and training. Such a translation is especially indispensable for the hammer-throw training which still relies on coaches' experience/observation and has not seen a new world record since 1986. Therefore, we developed a wearable wireless sensor system combining with artificial intelligence for real-time biomechanical feedback training in hammer throw. A framework was devised for developing such practical wearable systems. A printed circuit board was designed to miniaturize the size of the wearable device, where an Arduino microcontroller, an XBee wireless communication module, an embedded load cell and two micro inertial measurement units (IMUs) could be inserted/connected onto the board. The load cell was for measuring the wire tension, while the two IMUs were for determining the vertical displacements of the wrists and the hip. After calibration, the device returned a mean relative error of 0.87% for the load cell and the accuracy of 6% for the IMUs. Further, two deep neural network models were built to estimate selected joint angles of upper and lower limbs related to limb coordination based on the IMUs' measurements. The estimation errors for both models were within an acceptable range, i.e., approximately ±12° and ±4°, respectively, demonstrating strong correlation existed between the limb coordination and the IMUs' measurements. The results of the current study suggest a remarkable novelty: the difficulty-to-measure human motor skills, especially in those sports involving high speed and complex motor skills, can be tracked by wearable sensors with neglect movement constraints to the athletes. Therefore, the application of artificial intelligence in a wearable system has shown great potential of establishing real-time biomechanical feedback training in various sports. To our best knowledge, this is the first practical research of combing wearables and machine learning to provide biomechanical feedback in hammer throw. Hopefully, more wearable biomechanical feedback systems integrating artificial intelligence would be developed in the future.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".