Inertial measurement units (IMUs) are becoming increasingly popular in activity classification and workload measurement in sport. This systematic literature review focuses on upper body activity classification in court or field-based sports. The aim of this paper is to provide sport scientists and coaches with an overview of the past research in this area, as well as the processes and challenges involved in activity classification. The SPORTDiscus, PubMed and Scopus databases were searched, resulting in 20 articles. Both manually defined algorithms and machine learning approaches have been used to classify IMU data with varying degrees of success. Manually defined algorithms may offer simplicity and reduced computational demand, whereas machine learning may be beneficial for complex classification problems. Inter-study results show that no one machine learning model is best for activity classification; differences in sensor placement, IMU specification and pre-processing decisions can all affect model performance. Accurate classification of sporting activities could benefit players, coaches and team medical personnel by providing an objective estimate of workload. This could help to prevent injuries, enhance performance and provide valuable data to coaching staff.
CarlingCReillyTWilliamsAM. Performance assessment for field sports. London: Routledge, 2008.
2.
SchuldhausDZwickCKoergerH, et al. Inertial sensor-based approach for shot/pass classification during a soccer match. In: KDD workshop on large-scale sports analytics 2015, Sydney, Australia10 August 2015, pp. 1–4.
3.
ConnaghanDKellyPO’ConnorNE, et al. Multi-sensor classification of tennis strokes. In: Sensors, 2011 IEEE, Limerick, Ireland, 28–31 October 2011, pp. 1437–1440. New York: IEEE.
4.
NguyenLNNRodríguez-MartínDCatalàA, et al. Basketball activity recognition using wearable inertial measurement units. In: Proceedings of the XVI international conference on human computer interaction, Vilanova i la Geltru, Spain, 7 September 2015, p. 60. New York: ACM.
5.
QaisarSBImtiazSFaruqF, et al. A hidden markov model for detection & classification of arm action in cricket using wearable sensors. J Mobile Multimed2013; 9(1–2): 128–144.
6.
MitchellEMonaghanDO’ConnorNE.Classification of sporting activities using smartphone accelerometers. Sensors2013; 13(4): 5317–5337.
7.
BaiLEfstratiouCAngCS. weSport: Utilising wrist-band sensing to detect player activities in basketball games. In: 2016 IEEE international conference on pervasive computing and communication workshops (PerCom workshops), Sydney, Australia, 14–18 March 2016, pp. 1–6. New York: IEEE.
8.
StögglTHolstAJonassonA, et al. Automatic classification of the sub-techniques (gears) used in cross-country ski skating employing a mobile phone. Sensors2014; 14(11): 20589–20601.
AnandASharmaMSrivastavaR, et al. Wearable motion sensor based analysis of swing sports. In: 2017 16th IEEE International Conference on Machine Learning and Applications (ICMLA), Cancun, Mexico, 18–27 December 2017, pp.261–267. New York: IEEE.
11.
KosMKrambergerI.A wearable device and system for movement and biometric data acquisition for sports applications. IEEE Access2017; 5: 6411–6420.
12.
KosMŽenkoJVlajD, et al. Tennis stroke detection and classification using miniature wearable IMU device. In: 2016 International Conference on Systems, Signals and Image Processing (IWSSIP), Bratislava, Slovakia, 23–25 May 2016, pp. 1–4. New York: IEEE.
13.
MlakarMLuštrekM. Analyzing tennis game through sensor data with machine learning and multi-objective optimization. In: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM international joint conference on pervasive and ubiquitous computing and proceedings of the 2017 ACM international symposium on wearable computers, 11 September 2017, pp. 153–156. New York: ACM.
14.
SrivastavaRPatwariAKumarS, et al. Efficient characterization of tennis shots and game analysis using wearable sensors data. In: 2015 IEEE sensors, Busan, Korea, 1–4 November 2015, pp. 1–4. New York: IEEE.
15.
WhitesideDCantOConnollyM, et al. Monitoring hitting load in tennis using inertial sensors and machine learning. Int J Sports Physiol Perform2017; 12(9): 1212–1217.
16.
WangZGuoMZhaoC.Badminton stroke recognition based on body sensor networks. IEEE Trans Hum Mach Syst2016; 46(5): 769–775.
17.
McGrathJWNevilleJStewartT, et al. Cricket fast bowling detection in a training setting using an inertial measurement unit and machine learning. J Sports Sci2019; 37(11): 1220–1226.
18.
McNamaraDJGabbettTJChapmanP, et al. The validity of microsensors to automatically detect bowling events and counts in cricket fast bowlers. Int J Sports Physiol Perform2015; 10(1): 71–75.
19.
SalmanMQaisarSQamarAM.Classification and legality analysis of bowling action in the game of cricket. Data Min Knowl Discov2017; 31(6): 1706–1734.
20.
KhanANicholsonJPlötzT.Activity recognition for quality assessment of batting shots in cricket using a hierarchical representation. Proc ACM Interact Mob Wearable Ubiquitous Technol2017; 1(3): 1–31.
21.
MurrayNBBlackGMWhiteleyRJ, et al. Automatic detection of pitching and throwing events in baseball with inertial measurement sensors. Int J Sports Physiol Perform2017; 12(4): 533–537.
22.
RawashdehSARafeldtDAUhlTL.Wearable IMU for Shoulder Injury Prevention in Overhead Sports. Sensors2016; 16(11): 1847.
23.
KautzTGrohBHHanninkJ, et al. Activity recognition in beach volleyball using a deep convolutional neural network. Data Min Knowl Discov2017; 31(6): 1678–1705.
24.
HölzemannAVan LaerhovenK. Using wrist-worn activity recognition for basketball game analysis. In: Proceedings of the 5th international Workshop on Sensor-based Activity Recognition and Interaction, Berlin, Germany, 20–21 September 2018, p. 13. New York: ACM.
25.
MangiarottiMFerriseFGraziosiS, et al. A wearable device to detect in real-time bimanual gestures of basketball players during training sessions. J Comput Inf Sci Eng2019; 19: 011004.
26.
BullingABlankeUSchieleB. A tutorial on human activity recognition using body-worn inertial sensors. ACM Comput Surv (CSUR)2014; 46(3): 1–33.
27.
NiaziAHYazdansepasDGayJL, et al. Statistical analysis of window sizes and sampling rates in human activity recognition. In: 10th international joint conference on biomedical engineering systems and technologies, 21–23 February 2017, pp.319–325. Setúbal, Portugal: Science and Technology Publications, Lda.
28.
AttalFMohammedSDedabrishviliM, et al. Physical human activity recognition using wearable sensors. Sensors2015; 15(12): 31314–31338.
29.
YangC-CHsuY-L. A review of accelerometry-based wearable motion detectors for physical activity monitoring. Sensors2010; 10(8): 7772–7788.
30.
KunzeKBahleGLukowiczP, et al. Can magnetic field sensors replace gyroscopes in wearable sensing applications? In: Wearable Computers (ISWC), 2010 international symposium, Seoul, Korea, 10–13 October 2010, pp.1–4. New York: IEEE.
31.
ChenCJafariRKehtarnavazN. Utd-mhad: a multimodal dataset for human action recognition utilizing a depth camera and a wearable inertial sensor. In: 2015 IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP), Quebec City, QC, Canada, 27–30 September 2015, pp.168–172. New York: IEEE.
32.
AhmadiAMitchellEDestelleF, et al. Automatic activity classification and movement assessment during a sports training session using wearable inertial sensors. In: 2014 11th International conference on wearable and implantable Body Sensor Networks (BSN), Zuirch, Switzerland, 16–19 June 2014, pp.98–103. New York: IEEE.
33.
FigoDDinizPCFerreiraDR, et al. Preprocessing techniques for context recognition from accelerometer data. Pers Ubiquitous Comput2010; 14(7): 645–662.
34.
YazdansepasDNiaziAHGayJL, et al. A multi-featured approach for wearable sensor-based human activity recognition. In: 2016 IEEE International Conference on Healthcare Informatics (ICHI), Chicago, IL, USA, 4–7 October 2016, pp.423–431. New York: IEEE.
35.
WixtedAPortusMSpratfordW, et al. Detection of throwing in cricket using wearable sensors. Sports Technol2011; 4(3–4): 134–140.
36.
BanosOGalvezJ-MDamasM, et al. Window size impact in human activity recognition. Sensors2014; 14(4): 6474–6499.
37.
LagunaJOOlayaAGBorrajoD. A dynamic sliding window approach for activity recognition. UMAP2011; 11: 219–230.
38.
LaraODLabradorMA. A survey on human activity recognition using wearable sensors. IEEE Commun Surv Tutor2013; 15: 1192–1209.
39.
KhalidSKhalilTNasreenS. A survey of feature selection and feature extraction techniques in machine learning. In: 2014 Science and Information Conference (SAI), London, 2014, pp. 372–378. New York: IEEE.
40.
SzeVChenY-HYangT-J, et al. Efficient processing of deep neural networks: A tutorial and survey. In: Proc IEEE 2017; 105(12): 2295–2329.
41.
GómezDRojasA. An empirical overview of the no free lunch theorem and its effect on real-world machine learning classification. Neural Comput2016; 28(1): 216–228.
42.
WundersitzDWJosmanCGuptaR, et al. Classification of team sport activities using a single wearable tracking device. J Biomech2015; 48(15): 3975–3981.
43.
DomingosP. A few useful things to know about machine learning. Commun ACM2012; 55(10): 78–87.
44.
HallMA. Correlation-based feature selection for machine learning. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Waikato, Department of Computer Science, 1999.
45.
ChapmanAVicenzinoBBlanchP, et al. Do differences in muscle recruitment between novice and elite cyclists reflect different movement patterns or less skilled muscle recruitment?J Sci Med Sport2009; 12(1): 31–34.
