Sports Biomechanics

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rspb20

Novel technology in sports biomechanics: some

words of caution

Gerwyn T.G. Hughes, Valentina Camomilla, Benedicte Vanwanseele, Andrew

J. Harrison, Daniel T.P. Fong & Elizabeth J. Bradshaw

To cite this article: Gerwyn T.G. Hughes, Valentina Camomilla, Benedicte Vanwanseele,
Andrew J. Harrison, Daniel T.P. Fong & Elizabeth J. Bradshaw (2021): Novel technology
in sports biomechanics: some words of caution, Sports Biomechanics, DOI:
10.1080/14763141.2020.1869453

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14763141.2020.1869453

Published online: 26 Apr 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 5978

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rspb20
SPORTS BIOMECHANICS
https://doi.org/10.1080/14763141.2020.1869453

EDITORIAL

Novel technology in sports biomechanics: some words of caution

Introduction
Recent advances in technology have generated several new types of equipment which can be
used within biomechanics to measure motion and inertial forces during human movement
(Adesida et al., 2019; Aroganam et al., 2019; Dian et al., 2020; Kiely et al., 2019; Lutz et al., 2020;
De Pasquale & Ruggeri, 2019; Ray et al., 2019). The more established and used technologies
are measurement units based on inertia (Inertial Measurement Units [IMUs]), that are often
used in association with magnetic field sensors (MIMUs) (Grand View Research, 2018). The
domains of application of these technologies span several key areas of sports biomechanics,
including performance enhancement (Camomilla et al., 2018; Macadam et al., 2019;
Magalhaes et al., 2015), inertial force monitoring (Naughton et al., 2020; Paquette et al.,
2020; Vanwanseele et al., 2020), and injury risk mitigation (Patton et al., 2020; Sheerin et al.,
2019). The benefits of these new technologies often include a reduction in cost and improved
portability in comparison to more established equipment, allowing for data collection outside
of a lab setting which can improve ecological validity (Macadam et al., 2020). With increased
availability there is increased potential for unsuitable use, therefore, extensive independent
testing is required to establish the validity and reliability of these methods (Macadam et al.,
2019; Naughton et al., 2020). This is needed to establish the required levels of accuracy and
consistency to measure variables of interest within certain conditions prior to conducting
experimental research, and to establish guidelines for obtaining information from sensors that
could be reliably used to inform decisions (Camomilla et al., 2018). This editorial will address
some of the novel technologies being increasingly utilised within sports biomechanics and
highlight key factors to be considered in best practice.

Wearable sensor technology: spotlight on inertial and magneto-inertial

measurement units
Inertial and magneto-inertial measurement units (also known as inertial sensors) are
increasingly prevalent wearable sensor technologies in sports biomechanics. These wire­
less sensors typically contain tri-dimensional linear accelerometers and gyroscopes, with
a working principle based on inertia, and tri-dimensional magnetometers (Fong & Chan,
2010). For simplicity, all sensors based on inertia from hereon will be referred to as IMUs,
irrespective to the presence/absence of a magnetometer. IMUs are often used as either
a standalone tool or within a movement analysis system including multiple IMUs. IMUs
can provide linear and angular motion measures of individual segments (e.g. head,
thorax, tibia), but state of the art estimates of the centre of mass trajectory are still not
considered reliable for energy quantifications (Pavei et al., 2020). They can be mounted
directly onto the skin, attached to the athlete via a strap/belt, or within tightfitting
clothing. Various custom tools using IMUs are also available, which are often designed
© 2021 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 EDITORIAL

for a specific sport application, such as in distance running (e.g. mounted onto the lower
back, the back of the shoe or in the laces) and in unhelmeted football codes (e.g.
mouthguards, behind the ear patches). The variety of IMU technology, data collection
protocols and proposed applications of these IMUs are vast, consistent with the abundant
range of sports, movements, and skill variations. This affects the accuracy and reliability
of the resulting measures.
Several factors are crucial to the accuracy and reliability of the measurements from
IMUs. Validity relies on the proper selection of a sensor with appropriate technical
specifications, the accuracy of the sensor calibration and the absence of external ferro­
magnetic disturbances (both to be eventually spot checked). Subsequent sensor place­
ment, fixing and anatomical calibration are of vital importance when determining
validity (Camomilla et al., 2018; Macadam et al., 2019).
The measurements that can be obtained with IMUs can be broadly categorised into:
(1) physical activity classification and monitoring, (2) acceleration measurement to
estimate dynamics quantities related to external (whole-body) and/or internal (segment)
inertial forces (often also referred to as biomechanical loads), (3) acceleration measure­
ment to measure dynamic stability, (4) point or body segment kinematic quantities to
assess the technical aspects of the movement (e.g. angular velocity of the body about the
centre of gravity or two body segments relative orientation), or (5) a combination of two
or more of these categories. When it is crucial to represent and interpret mechanical
quantities within the linguistic framework of functional anatomy, as it is the case for
category 4, data measured in the sensor reference frame must be represented into an
anatomical segment reference frame, through an anatomical calibration procedure
(Cereatti et al., 2017; Cutti et al., 2010; Picerno, 2017; Picerno et al., 2008). Several
anatomical calibration methods have been used in the past; the most direct (but rarely
adequately accurate) method is to manually align the IMU case with qualitatively
identified anatomical planes and axes of the underlying bony segment, thus aligning
sensor and anatomical frames. An alternative solution for anatomical axes identification
is based on static and/or functional (dynamic) calibrations which benefit from a similar
popularity to manual alignment (Vitali & Perkins, 2020) and continuous development
(Bessone et al., 2019; Yoon et al., 2019; Li et al., 2020). During functional calibration,
functional movements are executed and used to calculate the orientation of anatomically
relevant axes with respect to the sensor frame. For example, some commercially available
systems use walking gait as a functional movement.
Regardless of the mechanical quantities of interest, there is presently no set of standard
protocols that provides adequate accuracy and reliability for the complexity of movements
and variety of sensor placement, biomechanical models, and anatomical calibration proce­
dures for specific measurement outputs (Poitras et al., 2019). Finally, invalid data can also arise
during data processing due to inappropriate selection of cut-off frequencies, and/or from not
using ad hoc algorithms to compensate for drift errors or ferromagnetic disturbances (Ligorio
& Sabatini, 2016; Mendes Jr. et al., 2016).
Consensus on the minimal requirements for accurate and reliable outcomes is needed to
strengthen the quality of the research that uses IMUs in exercise and sport science. Given the
central technical importance of kinetic and kinematic measurement in biomechanics; our
discipline is well qualified to guide the initiative to establish standards for their use, given the
discipline’s experience in publishing standards in three-dimensional motion analysis and
 SPORTS BIOMECHANICS 3

electromyography (e.g. Bishop et al., 2012; Camomilla et al., 2017; Chin et al., 2010; Jackson
et al., 2012; Kontaxis et al., 2009; De Luca, 1997; Wu & Cavanagh, 1995; Wu et al., 2002; 2005).
In the absence of such standards, Sports Biomechanics recommends that a comprehensive
evaluative review is undertaken as a matter of urgency to determine minimum specifications
of wearable technologies, and to provide guidelines on accurate and reliable standard mea­
surement protocols. Until this important step can be achieved, some general guidelines are
now provided for IMU-based studies, including a checklist of considerations on selecting and
using IMUs (Figure 1), and a table providing points to consider to recognise and minimise
potential error sources (Table 1).

Checklist
● IMU sensor mass and dimensions are small enough to minimise its influence
(encumbrance) on the movement, especially when used with children and youth
populations, or to limit the sensor wobbling when used to assess kinematics of fast
dynamic movements.
● Sampling frequency is appropriate for the measured movement and outcome para­
meters, being at least two times the highest frequency in the signal of interest
(according to the Nyquist–Shannon sampling theorem [Hamill et al., 1997]).
● Sensor capacity (e.g. linear acceleration full-scale range) is appropriate to capture
the true biomechanics of the movement, especially for the distal segments during
high impact events. It is important to check the quality of the recorded data (e.g. no
clipping/capping of the signal).
● Fixation on the skin should be as rigid as possible to avoid introducing movement
artefacts in the measures from the sensor itself. For that reason, fixing sensors onto
clothing, even tight-fitting clothing, or within non-rigid pockets is not recom­
mended. Placing sensors over soft tissue (fat or muscle) should also be avoided, as
should encumbering movement through placement too close to a joint. Sensor
placement fixation should be checked regularly during athlete testing, as they may
loosen over time when used in high impact activities and when exposed to athlete
sweat.
● Sensor placement for inertial force measures should be based on scaled instead of
absolute positions to account for the individual’s anthropometry (e.g. intersection of
the middle and distal thirds of the antero-medial aspect of the tibia instead of 8 cm
above the transverse plane defined by the centres of medial and lateral malleolus).
● An anatomical calibration routine should be implemented to ensure test-retest and
inter-athlete reliability. The orientation of the sensor reference frame axes is deter­
mined with respect to the anatomical axes of the segment. If manual alignment to
anatomical features is selected (e.g. for inertial force measures), sensor placement
must follow a set protocol. For any measures that seek to obtain descriptive kine­
matics of technique (e.g. knee joint angular kinematics), a more reliable approach
should be selected which may include static (e.g. anatomical position, T pose) and
functional (e.g. unweighted squats, walking) tasks.
● Data processing includes countermeasures for sensors limitations, using proper
sensor fusion (Ligorio & Sabatini, 2016; Mendes Jr. et al., 2016), or implementing
algorithms that embed a priori knowledge (Camomilla et al., 2018).
4 EDITORIAL

Smartphone sensors and application (App) software

Modern smartphones possess internal sensors which allow for measurement of the
phone’s movement using tri-axial accelerometers and gyroscopes. The notion of using
these sensors to monitor human movement during sports has been proposed for a while,
but until more recently may not have been fully exploited (Hummel et al., 2013; McNab
et al., 2011; Mitchell et al., 2013). Software developers have started creating innovative
applications (apps) which allow Biomechanists to use the phone as a wearable technology
device to measure motion and estimate forces. Examples of validated apps which use the
phone’s gyroscopes as an inclinometer include Dorsiflex, which has been validated to

Appropriate sampling Small mass and dimensions

frequency (minimal encumbrance and
wobbling)

Anatomical
calibration routine
Considerations Appropriate sensor
for selecting and full-scale range
using IMUs

Countermeasures for
Good fixation to avoid movement sensor limitations
artifacts (checked regularly)

Figure 1. Considerations for fixation selecting and using IMUs.

Table 1. Sensors limits, sport assessments more prone to negative effects and error sources to consider.
Error Source Error Consequence Critical for Strategy for Improvement
Soft tissue and High soft tissue artifacts Tasks entailing impacts or Fixing improvement, compensation
sensor inertia high inertia algorithms
Anatomical Low repeatability of Athlete joint kinematics More repeatable standards for
calibration results estimation and anatomical calibration
(based on longitudinal monitoring
alignment only)
Sensors drift Inaccurate estimates of Body segment and joint Sensor fusion
(mainly orientation orientation estimation Smart algorithms using a priori
gyroscope) Inaccurate gravity Acceleration magnitude as knowledge
removal and estimate well as velocity and
of sensor acceleration position estimation
Ferromagnetic Yaw (sensor longitudinal Indoor measures Spot check
disturbances axis) inaccuracies Compensation algorithms
(magnetometers)
Data transmission Loss of data Outdoor sports using Use of on-board storage for delayed
problems remote data logger transmission, and most recent
protocols for data transmission
 SPORTS BIOMECHANICS 5

measure ankle dorsiflexion range of motion (Balsalobre-Fernández et al., 2019), and

TiltMeter©, which has been validated to measure lumbar spine sagittal plane range of
motion (Pourahmadi et al., 2016). A more detailed critique of validated smartphone apps
to measure joint range of motion can be found in a systematic review by Keogh et al.
(2019), in which they support the use of smartphone apps to replace goniometers, but
recommend the development of more reliable and valid protocols for their use. These
apps, however, only measure static range of motion (range of joint motion when held
stationary at the limits of its movement) which restricts their possible application for
sports activities. While apps do exist for dynamically tracking inclination or direct
measures of acceleration and angular velocity (e.g. Phyphox) or estimating force using
the phones accelerometer (e.g. ForceData), there is limited validation of these applica­
tions to support their accuracy at present. In addition, the specifications of the smart­
phone’s internal sensors can vary considerably between devices which has been shown to
influence the accuracy of some applications when used on different devices (Chen et al.,
2018). Therefore, these specifications should be checked prior to using an app with
a particular smartphone. With continuous rapid advances in mobile phone technology,
this type of equipment is likely to become more accessible, accurate and more widely
used, since these apps offer opportunities to measure variables that would have pre­
viously been beyond the scope of the equipment available to many practitioners.
However, they should not be viewed as a replacement for established equipment.
Practitioners should be aware of their limitations, so that they can take the steps required
to minimise sources of error, as well as having the expertise required to correctly
interpret the data generated before using these tools for diagnostic assessments.

From measuring to providing actionable insights

A full awareness of sensor potential and limitations is at the foundation of bridging the
disconnect between the capability of these systems to measure movement and providing
actionable insights to coaches and athletes. The challenges and trends are to provide more
intelligent, real-time, accurate information, making it user friendly (Whelan et al., 2016).
Aside for adhering to minimum requirements for sensor use, our community should move
towards obtaining usable information from sensors to reliably inform decisions through
a human or automatic decision-making process. Supporting this process requires being in
the position to answer the following questions (adapted from Spiegelhalter, 2020):

(1) Does the proposed measure provide practical value when obtained and used in the
real world?
(2) Is the system as complex/simple as required for it to be used as a decision-making tool?
(3) Could you, as user, explain how it works (in general) to anyone who is interested?
(4) Are you sure the system is valid and reliable and are you aware of its uncertainty?
(5) Do you use it appropriately, with the right level of scepticism?

Summary
Novel technology is often commercialised for direct sport applications. Researchers and
practitioners need to understand the specific technology limits, best protocols for its
6 EDITORIAL

intended use, as well as the accuracy, reliability, and specificity of the chosen measures
before implementing the technologies in practice. In this editorial, two prevalent tech­
nologies with biomechanical applications have been discussed due to their relevance to
sport biomechanics: the inertial measurement unit(s) and the smartphone sensors/app
software. Emerging technological developments that are applicable to movement analysis
offer exciting opportunities for biomechanics to bridge the gap between research and
practice and allow Biomechanists to increasingly move away from the laboratory and to
the field where athletes train and compete. The technologies could therefore provide
opportunities to increase the ecological validity of the measurement obtained in sports
biomechanics practice (research, applied). This changing operational environment could
also assist biomechanics to have greater presence and perceived relevance to sport
provided that the measures and interpretations can be trusted. The International
Society of Biomechanics in Sport (ISBS) and this Journal are well positioned to guide
and advise this evolution, to give the discipline and its members the best chance of
success. This can be achieved through establishing standards for best practice, guided by
a comprehensive review of what has already been learnt from the foundational research
using these emerging technologies. Sports Biomechanics, therefore, encourages the
International Society of Biomechanics in Sport (ISBS) to carry out research and provide
a more comprehensive position statement on the use these technologies.

References
Adesida, Y., Papi, E., & McGregor, A. H. (2019). Exploring the role of wearable technology in sport
kinematics and kinetics: A systematic review. Sensors, 19(7), 1597. https://doi.org/10.3390/s19071597
Aroganam, G., Manivannan, N., & Harrison, D. (2019). Review on wearable technology sensors
used in consumer sport applications. Sensors, 19(9), 1983. https://doi.org/10.3390/s19091983
Balsalobre-Fernández, C., Romero-Franco, N., & Jiménez-Reyes, P. (2019). Concurrent validity and
reliability of an iPhone app for the measurement of ankle dorsiflexion and inter-limb asymmetries.
Journal of Sports Sciences, 37(3), 249–253. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2018.1494908
Bessone, V., Höschele, N., Schwirtz, A., & Seiberl, W. (2019). Validation of a new inertial
measurement unit system based on different dynamic movements for future in-field
applications. Sports Biomechanics, https://doi.org/10.1080/14763141.2019.1671486
Bishop, C., Paul, G., & Thewlis, D. (2012). Recommendations for the reporting of foot and ankle models.
Journal of Biomechanics, 45(13), 2185–2194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2012.06.019
Camomilla, V., Cereatti, A., Cutti, A. G., Fantozzi, S., Stagni, R., & Vannozzi, G. (2017). Methodological
factors affecting joint moments estimation in clinical gait analysis: A systematic review. Biomedical
Engineering Online, 16(1), 106. https://doi.org/10.1186%2Fs12938-017-0396-x
Camomilla, V., Bergamini, E., Fantozzi, S., & Vannozzi, G. (2018). Trends supporting the in-field
use of wearable inertial sensors for sport performance evaluation: A systematic review. Sensors,
18(3), 873. https://doi.org/10.3390/s18030873
Cereatti, A., Della Croce, U., & Sabatini, A. M. (2017). Three-dimensional human kinematic
estimation using magneto-inertial measurement units. In B. Müller, et al. (Ed.), Handbook of
human motion, 1-24. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-30808-1_162-1
Chen, K. H., Hsu, Y. W., Yang, J. J., & Jaw, F. S. (2018). Evaluating the specifications of built-in
accelerometers in smartphones on fall detection performance. Instrumentation Science &
Technology, 46(2), 194–206. https://doi.org/10.1080/10739149.2017.1363054
Chin, A., Lloyd, D., Alderson, J., Elliott, B., & Mills, P. (2010). A marker-based mean finite helical
axis model to determine elbow rotation axes and kinematics in vivo. Journal of Applied
Biomechanics, 26(3), 305–315. https://doi.org/10.1123/jab.26.3.305
 SPORTS BIOMECHANICS 7

Cutti, A. G., Ferrari, A., Garofalo, P., Raggi, M., Cappello, A., & Ferrari, A. (2010). Outwalk:
A protocol for clinical gait analysis based on inertial and magnetic sensors. Medical & Biological
Engineering & Computing, 48(1), 17–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11517-009-0545-x
De Luca, C. (1997). The use of surface electromyography in biomechanics. Journal of Applied
Biomechanics, 13(2), 135–163. https://doi.org/10.1123/jab.13.2.135
De Pasquale, G., & Ruggeri, V. (2019). Sensing strategies in wearable bio-mechanical systems for
medicine and sport: A review. Journal of Micromechanics and Microengineering, 29(10), 103001.
https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6439/ab2f24
Dian, F. J., Vahidnia, R., & Rahmati, A. (2020). Wearables and the Internet of Things (IoT),
applications, opportunities, and challenges: A survey. IEEE Access, 8, 69200–69211. https://doi.
org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2986329
Fong, D. T. P., & Chan, Y. Y. (2010). The use of wearable inertial motion sensors in human lower
limb biomechanics studies – A systematic review. Sensors, 10(12), 11556–11565. https://doi.org/
10.3390/s101211556
Grand View Research. (2018). Wearable sensors market size, share & trends report wearable sensors
market size, share & trends analysis report by sensor type, by device (Smart Watch, Fitness Band,
Smart Glasses, Smart Fabric), by vertical, by region, and segment forecast, 2018-2025. Market
research report, Grand View Research, Inc., San Francisco, CA. Retrieved December 4, 2020,
from https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/global-wearable-sensor-market
Hamill, J., Caldwell, G. E., & Derrick, T. R. (1997). Reconstructing digital signals using Shannon’s
sampling theorem. Journal of Applied Biomechanics, 13(2), 226–238. https://doi.org/10.1123/jab.13.2.
226
Hummel, O., Fehr, U., & Ferger, K. (2013). Beyond ibeer-exploring the potential of smartphone
sensors for performance diagnostics in sports. International Journal of Computer Science in
Sport, 12, 46–60. https://iacss.org/fileadmin/user_upload/IJCSS_FullPaper/Vol12_2013_Ed1/
IJCSS-Volume12_2013_Edition1_Hummel.pdf
Jackson, M., Michaud, B., Tétreault, P., & Begona, M. (2012). Improvements in measuring
shoulder joint kinematics. Journal of Biomechanics, 45(12), 2180–2183. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jbiomech.2012.05.042
Keogh, J. W., Cox, A., Anderson, S., Liew, B., Olsen, A., Schram, B., & Furness, J. (2019). Reliability and
validity of clinically accessible smartphone applications to measure joint range of motion:
A systematic review. PloS One, 14(5), e0215806. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0215806
Kiely, M., Warrington, G., McGoldrick, A., & Cullen, S. (2019). Physiological and performance
monitoring in competitive sporting environments: A review for elite individual sports. Strength
and Conditioning Journal, 41(6), 62–74. https://doi.org/10.1519/SSC.0000000000000493
Kontaxis, A., Cutti, A. G., Johnson, G. R., & Veeger, H. E. J. (2009). A framework for the definition
of standardized protocols for measuring upper-extremity kinematics. Clinical Biomechanics, 24
(3), 246–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2008.12.009
Li, Y., Koldenhoven, R. M., Jiwan, N. C., Zhan, J., & Liu, T. (2020). Trunk and shoulder kinematics
of rowing displayed by Olympic athletes. Sports Biomechanics, https://doi.org/10.1080/
14763141.2020.1781238
Ligorio, G., & Sabatini, A. M. (2016). Dealing with magnetic disturbances in human motion
capture: A survey of techniques. Micromachines, 7(3), 43. https://doi.org/10.3390/mi7030043
Lutz, J., Memmert, D., Raabe, D., Dornberger, R., & Donath, L. (2020). Wearables for integrative
performance and tactic analyses: Opportunities, challenges, and future directions. International
Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(1), 59. https://doi.org/10.3390/
ijerph17010059
Macadam, P., Cronin, J., Neville, J., & Diewald, S. (2019). Quantification of the validity and
reliability of sprint performance metrics computed using inertial sensors: A systematic
review. Gait & Posture, 73, 26–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaitpost.2019.07.123
Macadam, P., Cronin, J. B., Uthoff, A. M., Nagahara, R., Zois, J., Diewald, S., Tinwala, F., &
Neville, J. (2020). Thigh loaded wearable resistance increases sagittal plane rotational work of
the thigh resulting in slower 50-m sprint times. Sports Biomechanics, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.
1080/14763141.2020.1762720
8 EDITORIAL

Magalhaes, F. A. D., Vannozzi, G., Gatta, G., & Fantozzi, S. (2015). Wearable inertial sensors in
swimming motion analysis: A systematic review. Journal of Sports Sciences, 33(7), 732–745.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2014.962574
McNab, T., James, D. A., & Rowlands, D. (2011). iPhone sensor platforms: Applications to sports
monitoring. Procedia Engineering, 13, 507–512. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2011.05.122
Mendes Jr., J. J. A., Vieira, M. E. M., Pires, M. B., & Stevan Jr., S. L. (2016). Sensor fusion and smart
sensor in sports and biomedical applications. Sensors, 16(10), 1569. https://doi.org/10.3390/
s16101569
Mitchell, E., Monaghan, D., & O’Connor, N. E. (2013). Classification of sporting activities using
smartphone accelerometers. Sensors, 13(4), 5317–5337. https://doi.org/10.3390%2Fs130405317
Naughton, M., Jones, B., Hendricks, S., King, D., Murphy, A., & Cummins, C. (2020). Quantifying
the collision dose in rugby league: A systematic review, meta-analysis, and critical analysis.
Sports Medicine-Open, 6(1), 6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40798-019-0233-9
Paquette, M. R., Napier, C., Willy, R. W., & Stellingwerff, T. (2020). Moving beyond weekly
“distance”: Optimizing quantification of training load in runners. Journal of Orthopaedic &
Sports Physical Therapy, 50(10), 564–569. https://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2020.9533
Patton, D. A., Huber, C. M., Jain, D., Myers, R. K., McDonald, C. C., Margulies, S. S., & Arbogast, K. B.
(2020). Head impact sensor studies in sports: A systematic review of exposure confirmation methods.
Annals of Biomedical Engineering, 48(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10439-020-02642-6
Pavei, G., Salis, F., Cereatti, A., & Bergamini, E. (2020). Body center of mass trajectory and
mechanical energy using inertial sensors: A feasible stride? Gait & Posture, 80, 199–205.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaitpost.2020.04.012
Picerno, P., Cereatti, A., & Cappozzo, A. (2008). Joint kinematics estimate using wearable inertial
and magnetic sensing modules. Gait & Posture, 28(4), 588–595. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gait
post.2008.04.003
Picerno, P. (2017). 25 years of lower limb joint kinematics by using inertial and magnetic sensors:
A review of methodological approaches. Gait & Posture, 51, 239–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
gaitpost.2016.11.008
Poitras, I., Dupuis, F., Bielmann, M., Campeau-Lecours, A., Mercier, C., Bouyer, L., & Roy, J.-S.
(2019). Validity and reliability of wearable sensors for joint angle estimation: A systematic
review. Sensors, 19(7), 1555. MDPI AG. https://doi.org/10.3390/s19071555
Pourahmadi, M. R., Taghipour, M., Jannati, E., Mohseni-Bandpei, M. A., Takamjani, I. E., &
Rajabzadeh, F. (2016). Reliability and validity of an iPhone® application for the measurement of
lumbar spine flexion and extension range of motion. PeerJ, 4, e2355. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.
2355
Ray, T., Choi, J., Reeder, J., Lee, S. P., Aranyosi, A. J., Ghaffari, R., & Rogers, J. A. (2019). Soft,
skin-interfaced wearable systems for sports science and analytics. Current Opinion in
Biomedical Engineering, 9, 47–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobme.2019.01.003
Sheerin, K. R., Reid, D., & Besier, T. F. (2019). The measurement of tibial acceleration in runners—A
review of the factors that can affect tibial acceleration during running and evidence-based guidelines
for its use. Gait & Posture, 67, 12–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaitpost.2018.09.017
Spiegelhalter, D. (2020). Should we trust algorithms? Harvard Data Science Review, 2(1). https://
doi.org/10.1162/99608f92.cb91a35a
Vanwanseele, B., Op De Beéck, T., Schütte, K., & Davis, J. (2020). Accelerometer based data can
provide a better estimate of cumulative loading during running compared to GPS based
parameters. Frontiers in Sports and Active Living, 2, 154. https://doi.org/10.3389/fspor.2020.
575596
Vitali, R. V., & Perkins, N. C. (2020). Determining anatomical frames via inertial motion capture:
A survey of methods. Journal of Biomechanics, 106, 109832. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.
2020.109832
Whelan, D., O’Reilly, M., Huang, B., Giggins, O., Kechadi, T., & Caulfield, B. (2016). Leveraging
IMU data for accurate exercise performance classification and musculoskeletal injury risk
screening. In 2016 38th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine
 SPORTS BIOMECHANICS 9

and Biology Society (EMBC), Orlando, Florida, USA (pp. 659–662). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.
1109/EMBC.2016.7590788
Wu, G., & Cavanagh, P. R. (1995). ISB recommendations for standardization in the reporting of
kinematic data. Journal of Biomechanics, 28(10), 1257–1261. https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-
9290(95)00017-c
Wu, G., Siegler, S., Allard, P., Kirtley, C., Leardini, A., Rosenbaum, D., Whittle, M., D’Lima, D. D.,
Cristofolini, L., Witte, H., Schmid, O., & Stokes, I. (2002). ISB recommendation on definitions
of joint coordinate system of various joints for the reporting of human joint motion - Part I:
Ankle, hip, and spine. Journal of Biomechanics, 35(4), 543–548. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0021-
9290(01)00222-6
Wu, G., van der Helmb, F., Veegerc, H. E. J., Makhsouse, M., Van Royf, P., Angling, C., Nagelsh, J.,
Kardunai, A. R., McQuadej, K., Wangk, X., Wernerl, F. W., & Buchholz, B. (2005). ISB
recommendation on definitions of joint coordinate systems of various joints for the reporting
of human joint motion - Part II: Shoulder, elbow, wrist and hand. Journal of Biomechanics, 38
(5), 981–992. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2004.05.042
Yoon, T.-L., Kin, H.-N., & Min, J.-H. (2019). Validity and reliability of an inertial measurement
unit–based 3-dimensional angular measurement of cervical range of motion. Journal of
Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics, 42(1), P75–P81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmpt.
2018.06.001

Gerwyn T.G. Hughes

Department of Kinesiology, University of San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7141-9453
Valentina Camomilla
Department of Movement, Human and Health Science, University of Rome
“Foro Italico”, Rome, Italy
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7452-120X
Benedicte Vanwanseele
Human Movement Biomechanics Research Group, Department of Movement
Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6158-9483
Andrew J. Harrison
Biomechanics Research Unit, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5569-4885
Daniel T.P. Fong
National Centre for Sport and Exercise Medicine, School of Sport, Exercise and
Health Sciences, Loughborough University, Loughborough, UK
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7314-189X
Elizabeth J. Bradshaw
Centre for Sport Research, School of Exercise and Nutrition Science, Deakin
University, Melbourne, Australia
Sports Performance Research Institute New Zealand, Auckland University of
Technology, Auckland, New Zealand
liz.bradshaw@deakin.edu.au http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2271-2351