Accuracy and Reliability of Local Positioning Systems for Measuring Sport Movement Patterns in Stadium-Scale: A Systematic Review
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Local Positioning Systems
Why Local Positioning Systems’ Review?
3. Materials and Methods
3.1. Design
3.2. Selection of Studies
4. Results
4.1. Identification and Selection of Studies
4.2. Assessment of Methodological Quality
4.3. Study Characteristics
5. Discussion
5.1. Accuracy and Validity of LPS Systems
5.2. Reliability
6. Conclusions and Future Issues
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Ref. | GC1 | GC2 | GC3 | GC4 | GC5 | GC6 | GC7 | GC8 | GC9 | GC10 | GC11 | GC12 | GC13 | GC14 | LPS1 | LPS2 | LPS3 | LPS4 | LPS5 | LPS6 | LPS7 | LPS8 | TS | % |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Frencken, Lemmink and Delleman [33] | 0 | 0 | 1 | - | - | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | - | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 6 | 29 |
Ogris et al. [22] | 0 | 0 | 1 | - | - | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | - | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 8 | 38 |
Sathyan et al. [32] | 0 | 0 | 1 | - | - | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | - | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 10 | 48 |
Siegle et al. [34] | 0 | 0 | 1 | - | - | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | - | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 6 | 29 |
Stevens et al. [35] | 0 | 0 | 1 | - | - | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | - | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 33 |
Buchheit et al. [29] | 0 | 0 | 1 | - | - | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | - | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 38 |
Leser et al. [36] | 0 | 0 | 1 | - | - | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | - | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 11 | 52 |
Bastida Castillo et al. [23] | 0 | 0 | 1 | - | - | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | - | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 6 | 29 |
Linke et al. [18] | 0 | 0 | 1 | - | - | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | - | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 48 |
Hoppe et al. [31] | 0 | 0 | 1 | - | - | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | - | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 43 |
Serpiello et al. [39] | 0 | 0 | 1 | - | - | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | - | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 7 | 33 |
Luteberget et al. [38] | 0 | 0 | 1 | - | - | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | - | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 6 | 29 |
Bastida-Castillo et al. [17] | 1 | 0 | 1 | - | - | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | - | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 9 | 43 |
Link et al. [37] | 0 | 0 | 1 | - | - | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | - | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 29 |
[24] | 1 | 0 | 1 | - | - | 2 | 0 | - | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 11 | 52 |
Colino et al. ([30] | 0 | 0 | 1 | - | - | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | - | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 33 |
Appendix B
Article | Aim | Sport | LPS Device (Technology) | Algorithm | Ant | Hz | Criterion Measure | Task (Length in Meters) | Speed Threshold (km/h−1) | Results | Conclusions |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
LPM (lmp04.59) | |||||||||||
Frencken, Lemmink, and Delleman [33] | Accuracy /validity | Soccer (Outdoor) | LPM system (glass fiber technology). With cable [40] | Time difference | 19 | 1000/22 = 45.45 | Tape measure and timing gate | Static condition; Walking and sprinting: Straight (500), 45° turn (1000), 90° turn (1000), combined (2500) | - | Distance Walking = Straight, mean: 1 ± 2, 95% CI = 0 to 2; 45° turn, mean: −8 ± 6, 95% CI = −10 to −0.6; 90° turn, mean: −16 ± 10, 95% CI = −20 to −12; combined, mean: −29 ± 27, 95% CI = −40 to −19 Sprinting = Straight, mean: 0 ± 3, 95% CI = −1 to 1; 45° turn, mean: −6 ± 9, 95% CI = −9 to −2; 90° turn, mean: −16 ± 20, 95% CI = −24 to −9; combined, mean: −2 ± 42, 95% CI = −14 to 18; Speed Walking = Straight, mean: 5.3 ± 0.3, 95% CI = −0.2 to −0.1; 45° turn, mean: 5.6 ± 0.2 95% CI = −0.2 to −0.0; 90° turn, mean: −5.4 ± 0.3, 95% CI = −0.2 to −0.1; combined, mean: 5.1 ± 0.3, 95% CI = −0.1 to −0.1; Sprinting = Straight, mean: 16.0 ± 1.2, 95% CI = −0.8 to −0.5; 45° turn, mean: 16.9 ± 0.8, 95% CI = −0.7 to −0.4; 90° turn, mean: −14.6 ± 0.8, 95% CI = −0.5 to −0.2; combined, mean: 15.1 ± 0.5, 95% CI = −0.3 to −0.1. | Typical error > with increased speed but not with turning angle. |
Ogris et al. [22] | Accuracy | Soccer (Outdoor) | LPM [40] | TOF | 12 | 1000/22 = 45.45 | VICON | Walking, jogging, low, moderate, high-speed, and sprinting = Straight (500), 45° turn (1000), 90° turn (1000) and SSG (3 vs 3) | Walk: 2–6; Jog: 6.1–11; Low: 11.1– 14; Moderate: 14.1–19; High-speed: > 19; As fast as possible | Absolute error: 0.234 ± 0.207 cm; RMSE: 0.2133 (x axe) and 0.234 (y axe). | LPS less reliable with high dynamics movements and instantaneous velocities. |
Siegle et al. [34] | Accuracy | Soccer (Outdoor) | Laser measurement device (LAVEG) | TDOA | 11 | 1000/22 = 45.45 | Laser measurement (LAVEG) | Linear movement = Low speed (25 m); medium speed (25 m); high speed (25 m); Acceleration, stop (at 12.5 m), acceleration; Acceleration, stop (at 12.5 m), turn and acceleration. | - | Mean RMSE = 24 cm; Low speed = RMED: 22 cm; Run-stop-run = RMED: 51 cm | In linear measurement, LPS was more precise than image-based systems. |
NBN23 (Nothing But Net, Valencia, Spain) | |||||||||||
Colino et al. [30] | Validity/ reliability | Basketball (indoor) | NBN23 (Nothing But Net, Valencia, Spain) | - | 12 | 9, 17, 33, 50 Cut-off frequency | Timing gates | Specific courses = (1) three displacements were made at a comfortable walking speed. Displacements 4 to 6 were performed running at gentle pace; (2) three displacements were performed sprinting at maximum speed. | - | Distance (all speeds/<0.08 s running time) Maximal absolute error = < 18 cm Product-moment correlations = range: 0.60–0.99 ICC varied between high (0.75–0.90) and extremely high (>0.99) for most measures. Coefficients of variation remained almost invariable as speed increased (walking: 2.16; running: 2.52; sprinting: 2.20). | The running time errors could be too large for performance tests that require acute precision. |
WASP, Wireless | |||||||||||
Sathyan et al. [32] | Validity/reliability | Athletes from basketball, netball, rugby and soccer (Outdoor and indoor) | WASP. Wireless | Least squares algorithm | 12 | 10 | Tape measure | Static condition; Walking, jogging, running and sprinting = Outdoor linear course (30 m); indoor linear course (28 m); outdoor nonlinear course (27.6 m); indoor nonlinear course (27.6 m) | - | Static = mean 90th percentile error = 18 cm; indoor mean standard deviation = 11.9 ± 4.85 cm; outdoor mean standard deviation: 12.1 ± 5.17 cm; Dynamic = indoor 90th-percentile relative position errors: 28 cm; outdoor 90th-percentile relative position errors: 18 cm; Linear course = indoor mean error: 2.2%; outdoor mean error: 1.3%; Nonlinear course = indoor mean error: 2.7%; outdoor mean error: 3.2% | LPS showed consistent accuracy in both indoor and outdoor venues. |
Inmotio | |||||||||||
Stevens et al. [35] | Accuracy | Soccer (Outdoor) | version 05.30R, Inmotiotec GmbH, Regau, Austria | - | 11 | 1000/22 = 45.45 | VICON | Jog = submaximal and maximal: Straight, 180° change of direction, 90° change of direction | - | Distance and speed = LPM underestimated distance and average speed by 2 to 7% for movements involving a 180° change of direction (differences within 2% across all movements and intensities); Acceleration/deceleration = absolute bias; 0.01 ± 0.36 m/s2; 95% limits of agreement = 0.02 ± 0.38 m/s2; Peak acceleration (0.48 ± 1.27 m/s2) and peak deceleration (0.32 ± 1.17 m/s2) was overestimated. | LPS´s accuracy depends on movement intensity and type of movement. LPS had limited accuracy for peak acceleration and deceleration. |
Buchheit et al. [29] | Interchangeability of different tracking technologies | Soccer (outdoor) | Inmotio Object tracking v2.6.9.545, Amsterdam, the Netherlands | - | 11 | 45 | Timing gates | Runs on an oval 200 m course during training and friendly match: 200 m course at low, high and sprint; Standardized sprint during training and friendly match = 40 m sprint, L-shaped sprint, Zig-zag shaped sprint, distance into speed zones and number of accelerations: distance into speed zones during the runs; Peak speed and acceleration and sprint times | Los intensity: 7.2; High intensity: 14.4; sprint: 19.8 km—h−1 | Differences between systems in total distance = trivial-small; Differences between systems for high intensity running distance = slightly-to-moderately greater when tracked with Prozone, and accelerations, small-to-very largely greater with LPM. | Interchangeability of the different tracking systems is possible with the provided equations, but care is required given their moderate typical error of the estimate. |
Linke et al. [18] | Accuracy | Soccer (outdoor) | Inmotio Object Tracking BV, Amsterdam, Netherlands | - | 11 | 1000/22 = 45.45 | VICON | Sport specific courses = 15 m sprint into 5 m acceleration, 20 m sprint into 10 m backward running into 10 m forward running, 505 agility tests, two rapid 90° turns, (5 and 6) curved runs toward and away from the camera, 20 m shuttle run test wit 180° changes of direction for 2 min and SSG (possession 5 vs 5 for 2 min). | Standing: < 1; low speed: ≥ 1 to < 6; Moderate speed: ≥6 to < 15; Elevated speed: ≥15 to < 20; High speed: ≥20 to < 25; Very high speed: ≥ 25; High acceleration thresholds were set at ≥ 3 m-s−2; High deceleration thresholds were set at ≤ 3 m-s−2 | Position = Mean: 23±7 cm; Instantaneous speed = error: 0.25±0.06 m-s−1; Instant acceleration = error: 0.68±0.14 m-s−2; SSG = error range = 4.0%. | The magnitude of the error increased as the speed of the tracking object increased. |
KINEXON ONE (Munich, Germany) | |||||||||||
Hoppe et al. [31] | Validity and reliability | Soccer | KINEXON ONE, version 1.0, Munich, Germany | - | 12 | 18/20 | - | Specific circuits = walking, jogging and sprinting sections that were performed either in straight-lines or with changes of direction. | - | Distance covered UWB 18 Hz = TEE: 1.6–8.0%; CV: 1.1–5.1% UWB 20 Hz, TEE: 1.0–6.0%; CV: 0.7–5.0% Sprint UWB 18 Hz, TEE: 4.5–14.3%; CV: 3.1–7.5% UWB 20 Hz, TEE: 2.1–9.2%; CV: 1.6–7.3% Relative loss of data sets due to measurement error UWB 18 Hz = 20.0% UWB 20 Hz = 15.8% | Overall, 20 Hz LPS had superior validity and reliability than 18 Hz LPS and 10 Hz GPS. |
Inmotio and Kinexon | |||||||||||
Link et al. [37] | Accuracy | Ice hockey (Indoor) | Radio 1: Inmotiotec GmbH, Regau, Austria. Radio 2: Kinexon GmbH, Munich, Germany. | - | - | Radio 1: 100, Radio 2: 15 Aligned to 100 | Timing gates | Specific courses = Linear sprint (40 m), Shuttle run (five shuttle sprints (15.5 m) and four shuttle turns. | - | Linear Sprint 11 MAERadio1 = 1; MAERadio2 = 1; ICCRadio1 = 0.98; ICCRadio2 = 0.99 Shuttle Total MAERadio1 = 2; MAERadio2 = 2, ICCRadio1 = 1.0; ICCRadio2 = 1.0 Similar results were found for the turning subsection of the shuttle run CURadio1 = 0.5; CURadio2 = 0.5 | Limitations occur when testing changes/differences in performance over very short distances like an 11 m sprint, or when intermediate times are taken immediately after considerable changes of direction or speed. |
Realtrack Systems (Almería, Spain). UWB | |||||||||||
Leser et al. [36] | Accuracy | Basketball (Indoor) | UWB | TDOA/AOA | 6 | 4.17 ± 0.01 per tag | Trundle wheel | Runs in the center of the playing field and at the borders; Matches (5 vs. 5 + 1 player (without ball contact) leading a trundle wheel) | - | Runs = difference with trundle wheel: 8.25 ± 4.07%; 95% LoA: 0.27–16.22%); Match = mean difference = 3.45 ± 1.99%; 95% limits of agreement = −0.46–7.35%. | LPS had enough accuracy for time-motion analysis. |
Bastida Castillo et al. [23] | Accuracy /interunit reliability | Soccer (outdoor) | UWB | TOA x the speed of light | 6 | 18 | Timing gates and real distance | Linear, circular and zig-zag course | Walking: <6; run: >16 | Distance covered = bias: 0.57–5.85%; Test–retest reliability %TEM: 1.19; Interunit reliability bias: 0.18 Velocity = bias: 0.09; ICC: 0.979; bias: 0.01 | In static conditions and over prolonged periods of time UWB is more accurate than GPS. GPS accuracy was slightly more affected by the speed and type of displacement than UWB technology. Intra- and interunit reliability was acceptable for both systems analyzed. |
Bastida-Castillo et al. [17] | Accuracy/interunit reliability | Basketbal (Indoor) | UWB | TOA | 6 | 18 | Fixed reference lines of basketball court | Positional data; Dynamics = Perimeter markings of court; Middle line court.; Exterior perimeter of the painted lines; Center circle 6.75 m line. | MAE of all estimations for the x-position of 5.2 ± 3.1 cm and for the y-position of 5.8 ± 2.3 cm. Interunit reliability and ICC = 0.65 (x coordinate) and 0.85 (y coordinate). | Position estimations are very precise and acceptable for tactical analyses. The error of the position estimations does not change significantly across different courses. The use of different devices does not significantly affect the measurement error. | |
Bastida-Castillo et al. [24] | Accuracy | Soccer | UWB | TOA x the speed of light | 6 | 20 | GIS | Specific courses = Field perimeter; Halfway line; Centre circle; Perimeter of the penalty area; Semicircle penalty area; SSG (7 vs 7). | - | MAE = 9.57 ± 2.66 cm (x coordinate) and 7.15±2.62 cm (y coordinate). SSG For tactical variables, differences between UWB and GPS reached 8.31% (ES=0.11). | UWB-20Hz has been recommended as accurate technology for estimating position of players on the pitch, while GPS-10Hz has substantial limitations Significance differences reported in tactical analysis between GPS and LPS that the error of using one system or another can mean a difference of more than 8%. Test-retest reliability and interunit reliability were good for the two systems assessed. |
Catapult | |||||||||||
Serpiello et al. [39] | Validity | Indoor | LPS (Catapult ClearSky T6, Catapult Sports, Australia) | Hybrid algorithm TDOA, Two-Way Ranging and AOA | 18 | 10 | VICON | Specific courses = a maximal change of direction at 45° either left or right over a total distance of approximately 5.5 m; A self-paced walk over a linear course of 12 m; A self-paced jog over a linear course of 12 m; A maximal acceleration over a linear course of 12 m. | - | The mean differences for distance, mean/peak speed, and mean/peak accelerations in the linear drills were in the range of 0.2–12%, with typical errors between 1.2 and 9.3%. Mean and peak deceleration had larger differences and errors between systems. | LPS had acceptable validity to assess movements. |
Luteberget et al. [38] | Validity | Handball (Indoor) | Catapult ClearSky T6, Catapult Sports, Australia | - | 16 | 20 | Qualisy infra-red camera system | Specific courses = A straight-line sprint and deceleration to a stop; Two diagonal movements, forward and back to the left and the right, with the paths separated by an angle of ∼75°; A straight-line sprint, a 90° turn, and then deceleration to a stop; A zig-zag (angle of turns ≈ 60°) course executed with sideways movements, and a 360° turn; Five continuous laps of the same course as in task 4, without the 360° turn. | Mean difference = 21 ± 13 cm in the optimal setup, and 179 ± 761 cm in the suboptimal setup. Distance Average difference = < 2% for all tasks in the optimal condition, while it was < 30% in the suboptimal condition. Instantaneous speed Differences = ≥ 35% in the optimal and ≥74% suboptimal condition The differences between the LPS and reference system in instantaneous speed were speed dependent, showing increased differences with increasing speed. | The accuracy of LPS output was highly sensitive to relative positioning between field of play and walls/corners and anchor nodes. The LPS is not valid in calculating instantaneous speed from raw data. |
References
- Rico-González, M.; Pino-Ortega, J.; Nakamura, F.Y.; Moura, F.A.; Rojas-Valverde, D.; Arcos, A.L. Past, present, and future of the technological tracking methods to assess tactical variables in team sports: A systematic review. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part P J. Sports Eng. Technol. 2020, 175433712093202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fortino, G.; Giannantonio, R.; Gravina, R.; Kuryloski, P.; Jafari, R. Enabling Effective Programming and Flexible Management of Efficient Body Sensor Network Applications. IEEE Trans. Hum.-Mach. Syst. 2013, 43, 115–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jovanov, E.; Milenković, A.; Otto, C.A.; De Groen, P.C. A wireless body area network of intelligent motion sensors for computer assisted physical rehabilitation. J. Neuroeng. Rehabil. 2005, 2, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Salayma, M.; Al-Dubai, A.; Romdhani, I.; Nasser, Y. Wireless body area network (WBAN) a survey on reliability, fault tolerance, and technologies coexistence. ACM Comput. Surv. 2017, 50, 1–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cummins, C.; Orr, R.; O’Connor, H.; West, C. Global Positioning Systems (GPS) and Microtechnology Sensors in Team Sports: A Systematic Review. Sports Med. 2013, 43, 1025–1042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rico-González, M.; Mendez-Villanueva, A. Los Arcos, A Training load periodization in soccer with one official match a week: A systematic review. In An Essential Guide to Sports Performance; NOVA Science publisher: New York, NY, USA, 2000; pp. 123–166. ISBN 978/1/5361/7608/7. [Google Scholar]
- Hill-Haas, S.V.; Dawson, B.; Coutts, A.J.; Impellizzeri, F.M.; Coutts, A.J. Physiology of Small-Sided Games Training in Football: A Systematic Review. Sports Med. 2011, 41, 199–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Low, B.; Coutinho, D.; Gonçalves, B.; Rein, R.; Memmert, D.; Sampaio, J.A. Systematic Review of Collective Tactical Behaviours in Football Using Positional Data. Sports Med. 2020, 50, 343–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rico-González, M.; Pino-Ortega, J.; Nakamura, F.Y.; Moura, F.A.; Arcos, A.L. Identification, Computational Examination, Critical Assessment and Future Considerations of Distance Variables to Assess Collective Tactical Behaviour in Team Invasion Sports by Positional Data: A Systematic Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Heal. 2020, 17, 1952. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rico-González, M.; Pino-Ortega, J.; Nakamura, F.Y.; Arruda-Moura, F.; Arcos, A.L. Origin and modifications of the geometrical centre to assess team behaviour in team sports: A systematic review. [Origen y modificaciones del punto geométrico para evaluar el comportamiento táctico colectivo en deportes de equipo: Una revisión sistemática]. RICYDE. Rev. Int. de Cienc. del Deport. 2020, 16, 318–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rico-González, M.; Pino-Ortega, J.; Clemente, F.; Rojas-Valverde, D.; Arcos, A.L. A systematic review of collective tactical behavior in futsal using positional data. Boil. Sport 2020, 37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Castellano, J.; Alvarez-Pastor, D.; Bradley, P.S.; Castellano, J. Evaluation of Research Using Computerised Tracking Systems (Amisco® and Prozone®) to Analyse Physical Performance in Elite Soccer: A Systematic Review. Sports Med. 2014, 44, 701–712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pons, E.; García-Calvo, T.; Resta, R.; Blanco, H.; Del Campo, R.L.; García, J.D.; Pulido, J.J. A comparison of a GPS device and a multi-camera video technology during official soccer matches: Agreement between systems. PLOS ONE 2019, 14, e0220729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Rago, V.; Brito, J.; Figueiredo, P.; Costa, J.; Barreira, D.; Krustrup, P.; Rebelo, A. Methods to collect and interpret external training load using microtechnology incorporating GPS in professional football: a systematic review. Res. Sports Med. 2019, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Malone, J.J.; Lovell, R.; Varley, M.C.; Coutts, A.J. Unpacking the Black Box: Applications and Considerations for Using GPS Devices in Sport. Int. J. Sports Physiol. Perform. 2017, 12, S218–S226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rico-González, M.; Arcos, A.L.; Nakamura, F.Y.; Moura, F.A.; Pino-Ortega, J. The use of technology and sampling frequency to measure variables of tactical positioning in team sports: A systematic review. Res. Sports Med. 2020, 28, 279–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bastida-Castillo, A.; Gómez-Carmona, C.D.; De La Cruz-Sánchez, E.; Reche, X.; Ibáñez, S.J.; Pino-Ortega, J. Accuracy and Inter-Unit Reliability of Ultra-Wide-Band Tracking System in Indoor Exercise. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 939. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Linke, D.; Link, D.; Lames, M. Validation of electronic performance and tracking systems EPTS under field conditions. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0199519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Alarifi, A.; Alsalman, A.; Alsaleh, M.; Alnafessah, A.; Al-Hadhrami, S.; Al-Ammar, M.A.; Al-Khalifa, H. Ultra Wideband Indoor Positioning Technologies: Analysis and Recent Advances. Sensors 2016, 16, 707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leser, R.; Baca, A.; Ogris, G. Local Positioning Systems in (Game) Sports. Sensors 2011, 11, 9778–9797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rico-González, M.; Arcos, A.L.; Rojas-Valverde, D.; Clemente, F.M.; Pino-Ortega, J. A Survey to Assess the Quality of the Data Obtained by Radio-Frequency Technologies and Microelectromechanical Systems to Measure External Workload and Collective Behavior Variables in Team Sports. Sensors 2020, 20, 2271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ogris, G.; Leser, R.; Horsak, B.; Kornfeind, P.; Heller, M.; Baca, A. Accuracy of the LPM tracking system considering dynamic position changes. J. Sports Sci. 2012, 30, 1503–1511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bastida-Castillo, A.; Gómez-Carmona, C.D.; Sánchez, E.D.L.C.; Pino-Ortega, J. Accuracy, intra- and inter-unit reliability, and comparison between GPS and UWB-based position-tracking systems used for time–motion analyses in soccer. Eur. J. Sport Sci. 2018, 18, 450–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bastida-Castillo, A.; Gómez-Carmona, C.D.; Sánchez, E.D.L.C.; Pino-Ortega, J. Comparing accuracy between global positioning systems and ultra-wideband-based position tracking systems used for tactical analyses in soccer. Eur. J. Sport Sci. 2019, 19, 1157–1165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Frencken, W.G.; Lemmink, K.; Delleman, N.; Visscher, C. Oscillations of centroid position and surface area of soccer teams in small-sided games. Eur. J. Sport Sci. 2011, 11, 215–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hopking, W. Measures of reliability in sports medicine and science. Sports Med. 2000, 30, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Scott, M.T.; Scott, T.J.; Kelly, V.G. The Validity and Reliability of Global Positioning Systems in Team Sport. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2016, 30, 1470–1490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moher, D.; Liberati, A.; Tetzlaff, J.; Altman, D.G. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Int. J. Surg. 2010, 8, 336–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Buchheit, M.; Allen, A.; Poon, T.K.; Modonutti, M.; Gregson, W.; Di Salvo, V. Integrating different tracking systems in football: Multiple camera semi-automatic system, local position measurement and GPS technologies. J. Sports Sci. 2014, 32, 1844–1857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Colino, E.; Garcia-Unanue, J.; Sanchez-Sanchez, J.; Calvo-Monera, J.; Leon, M.; Carvalho, M.J.; Gallardo, L.; Felipe, J.L.; Navandar, A. Validity and Reliability of a Commercially Available Indoor Tracking System to Assess Distance and Time in Court-Based Sports. Front. Psychol. 2019, 10, 2076. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hoppe, M.W.; Baumgart, C.; Polglaze, T.; Freiwald, J. Validity and reliability of GPS and LPS for measuring distances covered and sprint mechanical properties in team sports. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0192708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sathyan, T.; Shuttleworth, R.; Hedley, M.; Davids, K. Validity and reliability of a radio positioning system for tracking athletes in indoor and outdoor team sports. Behav. Res. Methods 2013, 44, 1108–1114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Frencken, W.G.; Lemmink, K.A.; Delleman, N.J. Soccer-specific accuracy and validity of the local position measurement (LPM) system. J. Sci. Med. Sport 2010, 13, 641–645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Siegle, M.; Stevens, T.; Lames, M. Design of an accuracy study for position detection in football. J. Sports Sci. 2012, 31, 166–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stevens, T.G.; De Ruiter, C.; Van Niel, C.; Van De Rhee, R.; Beek, P.J.; Savelsbergh, G.J.; T, G.A.S.; G, J.P.S. Measuring Acceleration and Deceleration in Soccer-Specific Movements Using a Local Position Measurement (LPM) System. Int. J. Sports Physiol. Perform. 2014, 9, 446–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Leser, R.; Schleindlhuber, A.; Lyons, K.; Baca, A. Accuracy of an UWB-based position tracking system used for time-motion analyses in game sports. Eur. J. Sport Sci. 2014, 14, 635–642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Link, D.; Weber, M.; Lames, M.; Linke, D. Can Positioning Systems Replace Timing Gates for Measuring Sprint Time in Ice Hockey? Front. Physiol. 2019, 9, 1822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Luteberget, L.S.; Spencer, M.; Gilgien, M. Validity of the Catapult ClearSky T6 Local Positioning System for Team Sports Specific Drills, in Indoor Conditions. Front. Physiol. 2018, 9, 115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Serpiello, F.R.; Hopkins, W.G.; Barnes, S.; Tavrou, J.; Duthie, G.; Aughey, R.J.; Ball, K.A. Validity of an ultra-wideband local positioning system to measure locomotion in indoor sports. J. Sports Sci. 2018, 36, 1727–1733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Stelzer, A.; Pourvoyeur, K.; Fischer, A. Concept and Application of LPM—A Novel 3-D Local Position Measurement System. IEEE Trans. Microw. Theory Tech. 2004, 52, 2664–2669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Rico-González, M.; Los Arcos, A.; Clemente, F.M.; Rojas-Valverde, D.; Pino-Ortega, J. Accuracy and Reliability of Local Positioning Systems for Measuring Sport Movement Patterns in Stadium-Scale: A Systematic Review. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 5994. https://doi.org/10.3390/app10175994
Rico-González M, Los Arcos A, Clemente FM, Rojas-Valverde D, Pino-Ortega J. Accuracy and Reliability of Local Positioning Systems for Measuring Sport Movement Patterns in Stadium-Scale: A Systematic Review. Applied Sciences. 2020; 10(17):5994. https://doi.org/10.3390/app10175994
Chicago/Turabian StyleRico-González, Markel, Asier Los Arcos, Filipe M. Clemente, Daniel Rojas-Valverde, and José Pino-Ortega. 2020. "Accuracy and Reliability of Local Positioning Systems for Measuring Sport Movement Patterns in Stadium-Scale: A Systematic Review" Applied Sciences 10, no. 17: 5994. https://doi.org/10.3390/app10175994