Automatic detection of faults in race walking: A comparative analysis of machine-learning algorithms fed with inertial sensor data

48Citations
Citations of this article
86Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

The validity of results in race walking is often questioned due to subjective decisions in the detection of faults. This study aims to compare machine-learning algorithms fed with data gathered from inertial sensors placed on lower-limb segments to define the best-performing classifiers for the automatic detection of illegal steps. Eight race walkers were enrolled and linear accelerations and angular velocities related to pelvis, thighs, shanks, and feet were acquired by seven inertial sensors. The experimental protocol consisted of two repetitions of three laps of 250 m, one performed with regular race walking, one with loss-of-contact faults, and one with knee-bent faults. The performance of 108 classifiers was evaluated in terms of accuracy, recall, precision, F1-score, and goodness index. Generally, linear accelerations revealed themselves as more characteristic with respect to the angular velocities. Among classifiers, those based on the support vector machine (SVM) were the most accurate. In particular, the quadratic SVM fed with shank linear accelerations was the best-performing classifier, with an F1-score and a goodness index equal to 0.89 and 0.11, respectively. The results open the possibility of using a wearable device for automatic detection of faults in race walking competition.

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Taborri, J., Palermo, E., & Rossi, S. (2019). Automatic detection of faults in race walking: A comparative analysis of machine-learning algorithms fed with inertial sensor data. Sensors (Switzerland), 19(6). https://doi.org/10.3390/s19061461

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 29

71%

Researcher 5

12%

Professor / Associate Prof. 4

10%

Lecturer / Post doc 3

7%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Engineering 15

50%

Sports and Recreations 8

27%

Medicine and Dentistry 4

13%

Social Sciences 3

10%

Article Metrics

Tooltip
Mentions
Blog Mentions: 1

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free