Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Biomechanical study reveals machine-learning analysis of wearable inertial sensors distinguishes rowing conditions in youth rowers, highlighting the need for athlete-specific calibration.
Rowing combines on-water and ergometer-based training, while inertial measurement units (IMUs) offer a practical approach for field-based biomechanical monitoring. This study examined whether trunk-mounted IMU data can distinguish static Concept2 (C2), dynamic RP3, and on-water rowing conditions. Ten youth rowers (16.3 ± 0.8 years) performed high-intensity rowing in all three conditions. Triaxial acceleration and gyroscope data were recorded at 208 Hz. Six classical machine-learning and four deep-learning models classified overlapping three-stroke windows using leave-one-subject-out cross-validation. Repeated-measures analyses assessed condition-specific IMU magnitude features. The ensemble achieved the highest mean accuracy (85.5 ± 10.3%). Individual accuracy varied from 24.0% to 97.1% across models and athletes. The 7,545 windows were imbalanced toward Boat, with a no-information rate of 71.8%. Boat was identified most reliably, whereas RP3 was frequently misclassified as Boat. Nine of ten magnitude features remained significant after false-discovery-rate correction. Trunk-mounted IMU signals distinguished the three rowing conditions at group level. However, class imbalance, RP3 familiarity, measurement order, boat-standardisation asymmetry, and athlete-level variability require cautious interpretation. Applied use requires athlete-specific calibration and prospective validation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Leber et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: