Accuracy vs. Practicality of Inertial Measurement Unit Sensors to Evaluate Motor Competence in Children
The TGMD (i.e., Test of Gross Motor Development) has been considered as one of the gold standards of assessment tools for analysis of motor competence in children. However, it is rarely used by teachers in schools because the time, resources, and expertise required for one teacher to assess a class...
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2022-06-01
|
| Series: | Frontiers in Sports and Active Living |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fspor.2022.917340/full |
| _version_ | 1818546341239848960 |
|---|---|
| author | Natalie Lander Darius Nahavandi Nicole G. Toomey Lisa M. Barnett Shady Mohamed |
| author_facet | Natalie Lander Darius Nahavandi Nicole G. Toomey Lisa M. Barnett Shady Mohamed |
| author_sort | Natalie Lander |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | The TGMD (i.e., Test of Gross Motor Development) has been considered as one of the gold standards of assessment tools for analysis of motor competence in children. However, it is rarely used by teachers in schools because the time, resources, and expertise required for one teacher to assess a class of students is prohibitive in most cases. A potential solution may be to automate the testing protocol using objective measures and inertial measurement unit sensors. An accurate method using 17 sensors to capture full body motion profiles and machine learning methods to objectively assess proficiency has been developed; however, feasibility of this method was low. Subsequently, a simplified method using four sensors (i.e., attached to wrists and ankles) was found to be effective, efficient, and potentially highly feasible for use in school settings. For some skills, however, not all skill criteria could be assessed. Additionally, misclassification on occasion, marred results. In the present paper we consider a previous experiment that used wireless motion capture to assess criteria from the TGMD-3. We discuss the advantages alongside the disadvantages of testing motor competence in children using sensors and consider the question—Can a compromise be struck between accuracy and feasibility? |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-12T07:51:54Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-f02149965b2d471f8be2bf7fedcd0108 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2624-9367 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-12T07:51:54Z |
| publishDate | 2022-06-01 |
| publisher | Frontiers Media S.A. |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Frontiers in Sports and Active Living |
| spelling | doaj.art-f02149965b2d471f8be2bf7fedcd01082022-12-22T00:32:25ZengFrontiers Media S.A.Frontiers in Sports and Active Living2624-93672022-06-01410.3389/fspor.2022.917340917340Accuracy vs. Practicality of Inertial Measurement Unit Sensors to Evaluate Motor Competence in ChildrenNatalie Lander0Darius Nahavandi1Nicole G. Toomey2Lisa M. Barnett3Shady Mohamed4Faculty of Health, Institute for Physical Activity and Nutrition, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, AustraliaInstitute for Intelligent Systems Research and Innovation, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, AustraliaInstitute for Intelligent Systems Research and Innovation, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, AustraliaFaculty of Health, School of Health and Social Development, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, AustraliaInstitute for Intelligent Systems Research and Innovation, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, AustraliaThe TGMD (i.e., Test of Gross Motor Development) has been considered as one of the gold standards of assessment tools for analysis of motor competence in children. However, it is rarely used by teachers in schools because the time, resources, and expertise required for one teacher to assess a class of students is prohibitive in most cases. A potential solution may be to automate the testing protocol using objective measures and inertial measurement unit sensors. An accurate method using 17 sensors to capture full body motion profiles and machine learning methods to objectively assess proficiency has been developed; however, feasibility of this method was low. Subsequently, a simplified method using four sensors (i.e., attached to wrists and ankles) was found to be effective, efficient, and potentially highly feasible for use in school settings. For some skills, however, not all skill criteria could be assessed. Additionally, misclassification on occasion, marred results. In the present paper we consider a previous experiment that used wireless motion capture to assess criteria from the TGMD-3. We discuss the advantages alongside the disadvantages of testing motor competence in children using sensors and consider the question—Can a compromise be struck between accuracy and feasibility?https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fspor.2022.917340/fullTGMDfeasibilityaccuracymachine learningschoolsTGMD-3 |
| spellingShingle | Natalie Lander Darius Nahavandi Nicole G. Toomey Lisa M. Barnett Shady Mohamed Accuracy vs. Practicality of Inertial Measurement Unit Sensors to Evaluate Motor Competence in Children Frontiers in Sports and Active Living TGMD feasibility accuracy machine learning schools TGMD-3 |
| title | Accuracy vs. Practicality of Inertial Measurement Unit Sensors to Evaluate Motor Competence in Children |
| title_full | Accuracy vs. Practicality of Inertial Measurement Unit Sensors to Evaluate Motor Competence in Children |
| title_fullStr | Accuracy vs. Practicality of Inertial Measurement Unit Sensors to Evaluate Motor Competence in Children |
| title_full_unstemmed | Accuracy vs. Practicality of Inertial Measurement Unit Sensors to Evaluate Motor Competence in Children |
| title_short | Accuracy vs. Practicality of Inertial Measurement Unit Sensors to Evaluate Motor Competence in Children |
| title_sort | accuracy vs practicality of inertial measurement unit sensors to evaluate motor competence in children |
| topic | TGMD feasibility accuracy machine learning schools TGMD-3 |
| url | https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fspor.2022.917340/full |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT natalielander accuracyvspracticalityofinertialmeasurementunitsensorstoevaluatemotorcompetenceinchildren AT dariusnahavandi accuracyvspracticalityofinertialmeasurementunitsensorstoevaluatemotorcompetenceinchildren AT nicolegtoomey accuracyvspracticalityofinertialmeasurementunitsensorstoevaluatemotorcompetenceinchildren AT lisambarnett accuracyvspracticalityofinertialmeasurementunitsensorstoevaluatemotorcompetenceinchildren AT shadymohamed accuracyvspracticalityofinertialmeasurementunitsensorstoevaluatemotorcompetenceinchildren |