4.2 Article

Comparison of marker-less and marker-based motion capture for baseball pitching kinematics

期刊

SPORTS BIOMECHANICS
卷 -, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/14763141.2022.2076608

关键词

Biomechanics; motion capture; shoulder; elbow

资金

  1. 2020 International Society of Biomechanics in Sports Internship Grant

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The purpose of this study was to compare baseball pitching kinematics measured with marker-less and marker-based motion capture. The study found that the two systems produced similar movement patterns but with some variations. Therefore, it is recommended to establish a normative range database for each system.
The purpose of this study was to compare baseball pitching kinematics measured with marker-less and marker-based motion capture. Two hundred and seventy-five fastball pitches were captured at 240 Hz simultaneously with a 9-camera marker-less system and a 12-camera marker system. The pitches were thrown by 30 baseball pitchers (age 17.1 +/- 3.1 years). Data for each trial were time-synchronised between the two systems using the instant of ball release. Coefficients of Multiple Correlations (CMC) were computed to assess the similarity of waveforms between the two systems. Discrete measurements at foot contact, during arm cocking, and at ball release were compared between the systems using Bland-Altman plots and descriptive statistics. CMC values for the five time series analysed ranged from 0.88 to 0.97, indicating consistency in movement patterns between systems. Biases for discrete measurements ranged in magnitude from 0 to 16 degrees. Standard deviations of the differences between systems ranged from 0 to 14 degrees, while intraclass correlations ranged from 0.64 to 0.92. Thus, the marker-based and marker-less motion capture systems produced similar patterns for baseball pitching kinematics. However, based on the variations between the systems, it is recommended that a database of normative ranges be established for each system.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据