Optimising Instrumented Mouthguard Data Analysis: Video Synchronisation Using a Cross-correlation Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Head acceleration events (HAEs) are a growing concern in contact sports, prompting two rugby governing bodies to mandate instrumented mouthguards (iMGs). This has resulted in an influx of data imposing financial and time constraints. This study presents two computational methods that leverage a dataset of video-coded match events: cross-correlation synchronisation aligns iMG data to a video recording, by providing playback timestamps for each HAE, enabling analysts to locate them in video footage; and post-synchronisation event matching identifies the coded match event (e.g. tackles and ball carries) from a video analysis dataset for each HAE, this process is important for calculating the probability of match events resulting in HAEs. Given the professional context of iMGs in rugby, utilising commercial sources of coded match event datasets may expedite iMG analysis. METHODS: Accuracy and validity of the methods were assessed via video verification during 60 rugby matches. The accuracy of cross-correlation synchronisation was determined by calculating synchronisation error, whilst the validity of post-synchronisation event matching was evaluated using diagnostic accuracy measures (e.g. positive predictive value [PPV] and sensitivity). RESULTS: Cross-correlation synchronisation yielded mean synchronisation errors of 0.61-0.71 s, with all matches synchronised within 3 s' error. Post-synchronisation event matching achieved PPVs of 0.90-0.95 and sensitivity of 0.99-1.00 for identifying correct match events for SAEs. CONCLUSION: Both methods achieved high accuracy and validity with the data sources used in this study. Implementation depends on the availability of a dataset of video-coded match events; however, integrating commercially available video-coded datasets offers the potential to expedite iMG analysis, improve feedback timeliness, and augment research analysis.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".