↓ Skip to main content

Validity of the Catapult ClearSky T6 Local Positioning System for Team Sports Specific Drills, in Indoor Conditions

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Physiology, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
82 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
133 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Validity of the Catapult ClearSky T6 Local Positioning System for Team Sports Specific Drills, in Indoor Conditions
Published in
Frontiers in Physiology, April 2018
DOI 10.3389/fphys.2018.00115
Pubmed ID
Authors

Live S. Luteberget, Matt Spencer, Matthias Gilgien

Abstract

Aim: The aim of the present study was to determine the validity of position, distance traveled and instantaneous speed of team sport players as measured by a commercially available local positioning system (LPS) during indoor use. In addition, the study investigated how the placement of the field of play relative to the anchor nodes and walls of the building affected the validity of the system. Method: The LPS (Catapult ClearSky T6, Catapult Sports, Australia) and the reference system [Qualisys Oqus, Qualisys AB, Sweden, (infra-red camera system)] were installed around the field of play to capture the athletes' motion. Athletes completed five tasks, all designed to imitate team-sports movements. The same protocol was completed in two sessions, one with an assumed optimal geometrical setup of the LPS (optimal condition), and once with a sub-optimal geometrical setup of the LPS (sub-optimal condition). Raw two-dimensional position data were extracted from both the LPS and the reference system for accuracy assessment. Position, distance and speed were compared. Results: The mean difference between the LPS and reference system for all position estimations was 0.21 ± 0.13 m (n = 30,166) in the optimal setup, and 1.79 ± 7.61 m (n = 22,799) in the sub-optimal setup. The average difference in distance was below 2% for all tasks in the optimal condition, while it was below 30% in the sub-optimal condition. Instantaneous speed showed the largest differences between the LPS and reference system of all variables, both in the optimal (≥35%) and sub-optimal condition (≥74%). The differences between the LPS and reference system in instantaneous speed were speed dependent, showing increased differences with increasing speed. Discussion: Measures of position, distance, and average speed from the LPS show low errors, and can be used confidently in time-motion analyses for indoor team sports. The calculation of instantaneous speed from LPS raw data is not valid. To enhance instantaneous speed calculation the application of appropriate filtering techniques to enhance the validity of such data should be investigated. For all measures, the placement of anchor nodes and the field of play relative to the walls of the building influence LPS output to a large degree.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 133 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 133 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 18%
Student > Master 21 16%
Researcher 16 12%
Student > Bachelor 15 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 5%
Other 15 11%
Unknown 36 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 65 49%
Engineering 8 6%
Computer Science 6 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 2%
Other 6 5%
Unknown 40 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 April 2018.
All research outputs
#4,494,577
of 23,020,670 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#2,218
of 13,773 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#88,072
of 329,064 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#91
of 436 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,020,670 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,773 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 329,064 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 436 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.