4.6 Article

Reconstruction accuracy in underwater three-dimensional kinematic analysis

Journal

JOURNAL OF SCIENCE AND MEDICINE IN SPORT
Volume 11, Issue 2, Pages 90-95

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jsams.2007.02.010

Keywords

accuracy; three-dimensional; kinematics; swimming

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Accuracy of kinematic data is of decisive importance in motion analysis particularly when they are to be used for the calculation of kinetic parameters, like the propulsive forces in swimming. The present study investigated the accuracy of underwater three-dimensional (3-D) kinematic analysis using periscope systems and calibration volumes with different size. Two analogue cameras (60 Hz) were used to record the images, along with two stationary periscope systems for the underwater recordings. The calibration of the recording space was performed using two different-sized calibration frames. The reconstruction accuracy was determined in static and dynamic conditions, both under water and out of the water. In static conditions, the reconstruction accuracy was determined by calculating the root mean square (RMS) error for the reconstruction of eight validation points on the calibration frames, and in dynamic conditions it was determined by the percentage of RMS error of the reconstructed length of a moving rod. The results revealed that in static conditions the RMS error was greater during underwater analysis, due to refraction, and it was increased particularly in the longitudinal axis as the dimensions of the calibration volume were increased. The reconstruction errors observed during underwater recordings with both calibration volumes (transverse axis, 1.61-2.35 mm; longitudinal, 2.99-4.64 mm; vertical, 2.83-2.59 mm) may be considered suitable for three-dimensional kinematic analysis of swimming. (c) 2007 Sports Medicine Australia. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available