A need for speed: Objectively identifying full-body kinematic and neuromuscular features associated with faster sprint velocities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sprinting is multifactorial and dependent on a variety of kinematic, kinetic, and neuromuscular features. A key objective in sprinting is covering a set amount of distance in the shortest amount of time. To achieve this, sprinters are required to coordinate their entire body to achieve a fast sprint velocity. This suggests that a whole-body kinematic and neuromuscular coordinative strategy exists which is associated with improved sprint performance. The purpose of this study was to leverage inertial measurement units (IMUs) and wireless surface electromyography (sEMG) to find coordinative strategies associated with peak over-ground sprint velocity using machine learning. We recruited 40 healthy university age sprint-based athletes from a variety of athletic backgrounds. IMU and sEMG data were used as inputs into a principal components analysis (PCA) to observe major modes of variation (i.e., PC scores). PC scores were then used as inputs into a stepwise multivariate linear regression model to derive associations of each mode of variation with peak sprint velocity. Both the kinematic (R2 = 0.795) and sEMG data (R2 = 0.586) produced significant multivariate linear regression models. The PCs that were selected as inputs into the multivariate linear regression model were reconstructed using multi-component reconstruction to produce a representation of the whole-body movement pattern and changes in the sEMG waveform associated with faster sprint velocities. The findings of this work suggest that distinct features are associated with faster sprint velocity. These include the timing of the contralateral arm and leg swing, stance leg kinematics, dynamic trunk extension at toe-off, asymmetry between the right and left swing side leg and a phase shift feature of the posterior chain musculature. These results demonstrate the utility of data-driven frameworks in identifying different coordinative features that are associated with a movement outcome. Using our framework, coaches and biomechanists can make decisions based on objective movement information, which can ultimately improve an athlete's performance.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".