MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Association Of On-court Impact Load And Intensity With Rating Of Perceived Exertion In Basketball

2023· article· en· W4387063018 on OpenAlexaff
Anil C. Palanisamy, Joshua A.J. Keogh, Stevan Japundzic, Dylan Kobsar

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSports Performance and Training
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBasketballRating of perceived exertionIntensity (physics)Perceived exertionPhysical therapyAssociation (psychology)AnklePsychologyExercise intensityTeam sportMedicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationStatisticsMathematicsInternal medicineSurgeryGeographyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Our purpose was to (i) examine the association between wearable sensor-derived loading and rating of perceived exertion (RPE) during on-court practices in men’s basketball, and (ii) compare wearable sensor-derived loading between practices and games. METHODS: Eleven male basketball players, free from musculoskeletal injury, on the McMaster University Basketball team participated in the study. Players were fitted with bilateral inertial measurement units (iMeasureU, Vicon) at the ankle to measure resultant acceleration impacts during 11 practices and 5 games over a 3-week period. Two primary variables were obtained from the sensors relating to (i) total impact load (number of steps x resultant acceleration of impact) and (ii) average intensity (average impact intensity from all steps). Additionally, the Borg-10 RPE questionnaire was collected immediately after each practice and used to quantify RPE and sRPE (RPE x practice time). The association between the sensor and self-reported data were quantified using Pearson correlation coefficients. Additionally, sensor variables from practice were compared to those obtained in games using non-parametric paired t-test. RESULTS: A low and moderate correlation was observed for total impact load on RPE (r = 0.11, p = 0.04) and sRPE (r = 0.45, p < 0.001), respectively, in practices. Alternatively, no significant correlation was observed between average intensity and RPE (r = 0.07, p = 0.55) or sRPE (r = 0.11, p = 0.35). In comparing games to practices, games were found to display a greater average intensity compared to practices (19.6 ± 2.1 g vs. 11.6 ± 2.1 g; p = 0.004). Although games on average had a lower total impact load compared to practices (66 k ± 29 k-g vs. 73 k ± 8 k-g; p = 0.42), this was not significant given the high amount of variability and limited sample size for in-game data (e.g., n = 6 athletes with in-game sensors). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that loading metrics from wearable inertial sensors display low to moderate correlations with practice RPE. Additionally, we found that while games have higher average intensities, the total load may be lower overall. These initial findings highlight the utility of wearable sensors to provide unique insights into practice and competition load that may not be fully captured in RPE alone.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.279 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise→Same topicSports Performance and Training→French-language works237,207→