Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of algorithms to determine jump height and flight time from body mounted accelerometers

  • Technical Note
  • Published:
Sports Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to evaluate a new procedure of data processing from a body-mounted accelerometer to improve the assessment of vertical jump height. As the main difficulty when using an accelerometer is to detect the times of take-off and of landing, a new criterion was proposed to detect these times more accurately. Thirty physical education students participated in this study. They performed three squat jumps, three countermovement jumps with hands placed on the pelvis and three countermovement jumps with free arms (\(n = 270\) jumps). Flight time, vertical jump height and vertical velocity at take-off were collected from the accelerometer (the Myotest device and its specific software), the modified accelerometer (raw data of the Myotest and a specific treatment for the detection take-off and landing times) and a force platform, considered as the reference device. Concerning the flight time, systematic bias decreased from \(0.034 \pm 0.079\) s with the original accelerometer to \(-0.008 \pm 0.078\) s with the modified accelerometer. Regarding the vertical jump height, systematic bias decreased from \(4.8 \pm 9.4\) cm with the original accelerometer to \(-1.3 \pm 9.2\) cm with the modified accelerometer. Finally, the vertical velocity systematic bias was \(-0.12 \pm 0.28\) and \(-0.19 \pm 0.29\) m s\(^{-1}\) with the original accelerometer and the modified accelerometer, respectively. This study showed that the improvement proposed for the body-mounted accelerometer decreased the systematic bias, especially for the vertical jump height assessment, but not the random error.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

References

  1. Mero A, Komi PV, Gregor RJ (1992) Biomechanics of sprint running. Sports Med 13:376–392

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Duthie G, Pyne D, Hooper S (2003) Applied physiology and game analysis of rugby union. Sports Med 33:973–991

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Ebben WP, Carroll RM, Simenz CJ (2004) Strength and conditioning practices of national hockey league strength and conditioning coaches. J Strength Cond Res 18:889–897

    Google Scholar 

  4. Stolen T, Chamari K, Castagna C, Wisloff U (2005) Physiology of soccer: an update. Sports Med 35:501–536

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Ostojic S, Mazic S, Dikic N (2006) Profiling in basketball: physical and physiological characteristics of elite players. J Strength Cond Res 20:740–744

    Google Scholar 

  6. Ziv G, Lidor R (2010) Vertical jump in female and male basketball players, a review of observational and experimental studies. J Sci Med Sport 13:332–339

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Sheppard J, Dingley A, Janssen I, Spratford W, Chapman DW, Newton R (2011) The effect of assisted jumping on vertical jump height in high-performance volleyball players. J Sci Med Sport 14:85–89

    Google Scholar 

  8. Arsac LM, Belli A, Lacour J (1996) Muscle funciton during brief maximal exercise: accurate measurements on a friction-loaded cycle ergometer. Eur J Appl Physiol 74:100–106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Jakolska A, Goossens P, Veenstra B, Jakolski A, Skinner JS (1999) Comparison of treadmill and cycle ergometer measurements of force–velocity relationships and power outputs. Int J Sports Med 20:192–197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Rahmani A, Dalleau G, Viale F, Hautier CA, Lacour J (2000) Validity and reliability of a kinematic device for measuring the force developed during squatting. J Appl Biomech 16:26–35

    Google Scholar 

  11. Samozino P, Morin JB, Hintzy F, Belli A (2008) A simple method for measuring force, velocity and power output during squat jump. J Biomech 41:2940–2945

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Maud P, Foster C (2006) Physiological assessment of human fitness. Human kinetetics.

  13. Aragon-vargas L (1997) Kinesiological factors in vertical jump performance: differences among individuals. J Appl Biomech 13:24–44

    Google Scholar 

  14. Glatthorn JF, Gouge S, Nussbaumer S, Stauffacher S, Impellizzeri FM, Maffiuletti NA (2011) Validity and reliability of optojump photoelectric cells for estimating vertical jump height. J Strength Cond Res 25(2):556–560

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Nuzzo JL, Anning JH, Scharfenberg JM (2011) The reliability of three devices used for measuring vertical jump height. J Strength Cond Res 25(9):2580–2590

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Casartelli N, Muller R, Maffiuletti NA (2010) Validity and reliability of the myotest accelerometric system for the assessment of vertical jump height. J Strength Cond Res 24(11):3186–3193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Castagna C, Ganzetti M, Ditroilo M, Giovannelli M, Rocchetti A, Manzi V (2013) Concurrent validity of vertical jump performance assessment systems. J Strength Cond Res 27(3):761–768

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Bosquet L, Berryman N, Dupuy O (2009) A comparison of 2 optical timing systems designed to measure flight time and contact time during jumping and hopping. J Strength Cond Res 23:2660–2665

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Petushek EJ, Van der Zanden T, Wurm B, Ebben WP (2010) Comparison of jump height values derived from a force platform and Vertec. In: International symposium on biomechanics in sports conference Pr, vol 28, p1

  20. Linthorne NP (2001) Analysis of standing vertical jumps using a force platform. Am J Phys 69(11):1198–2104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Musayev E (2006) Optoelectronic vertical jump height measuring method and device. Measurement 39(4):312–319

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Bland J, Altman D (1986) Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 8:307–310

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Tarlor JH (1999) An introduction to error analysis: the study of uncertainties in physical measurements. University Science Books, Sausalito

  24. Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavorial sciences, 2nd edn. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ

  25. Cronin JB, Hing RD, McNair PJ (2004) Reliability and validity of a linear position transducer for measuring jump performance. J Strength Cond Res 18(3):590–593

    Google Scholar 

  26. Kibele A (1998) Possibilities and limitations in the biomechanical analysis of countermovement jumps: a methodological study. J Appl Biomech 14(1):105–117

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Authors would like to acknowledge Anna and her sister for their careful rereading of this article.

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. UPR 3346, Institut Pprime, Université de Poitiers, CNRS, BvdM&PCurie, BP 30179, 86962 , Futuroscope Cedex, France

    Tony Monnet, Arnaud Decatoire & Patrick Lacouture

Authors
  1. Tony Monnet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Arnaud Decatoire
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Patrick Lacouture
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tony Monnet.

Appendix

Appendix

See Figs. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12.

Fig. 7
figure 7

BA plots (\(n=90\)) of force platform versus Acc and Acc-b flight times for the SJ. Mean 95 % confidence interval from 0.023 to 0.031 s for Acc and from \(-0.018\) to \(-0.010\) s for Acc-b

Full size image
Fig. 8
figure 8

BA plots (\(n=90\)) of force platform versus Acc and Acc-b flight times for the CMJ. Mean 95 % confidence interval from 0.031 to 0.038 s for Acc and from \(-0.004\) to 0.003 s for Acc-b

Full size image
Fig. 9
figure 9

BA plots (\(n=90\)) of force platform versus Acc and Acc-b flight times for the CMJ-FA. Mean 95 % confidence interval from 0.019 to 0.026 s for Acc and from \(-0.013\) to \(-0.006\) s for Acc-b

Full size image
Fig. 10
figure 10

BA plots (\(n=90\)) of force platform versus Acc and Acc-b vertical velocities for the SJ. Mean 95 % confidence interval from \(-0.018\) to 0.040 m s\(^{-1}\) for Acc and from \(-0.103\) to \(-0.041\) m s\(^{-1}\) for Acc-b

Full size image
Fig. 11
figure 11

BA plots (\(n=90\)) of force platform versus Acc and Acc-b vertical velocities for the CMJ. Mean 95 % confidence interval from \(-0.165\) to \(-0.052\) m s\(^{-1}\) for Acc and from \(-0.236\) to \(-0.121\) m s\(^{-1}\) for Acc-b

Full size image
Fig. 12
figure 12

BA plots (\(n=90\)) of force platform versus Acc and Acc-b vertical velocities for the CMJ-FA. Mean 95 % confidence interval from \(-0.318\) to \(-0.178\) m s\(^{-1}\) for Acc and from \(-0.382\) to \(-0.240\) m s\(^{-1}\) for Acc-b

Full size image

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Monnet, T., Decatoire, A. & Lacouture, P. Comparison of algorithms to determine jump height and flight time from body mounted accelerometers. Sports Eng 17, 249–259 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12283-014-0155-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12283-014-0155-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation