How Are Sports-Trackers Used by Runners? Running-Related Data, Personal Goals, and Self-Tracking in Running

A Framework for Selecting and Assessing Wearable Sensors Deployed in Safety Critical Scenarios

Wearable sensors for psychophysiological monitoring are becoming increasingly mainstream in safety critical contexts. They offer a novel solution to capturing sub-optimal states and can help identify when workers in safety critical environments are suffering from states such as fatigue and stress. However, sensors can differ widely in their application, design, usability, and measurement and there is a lack of guidance on what should be prioritized or considered when selecting a sensor. The paper aims to highlight which concepts are important when creating or selecting a device regarding the optimization of both measurement and usability. Additionally, the paper discusses how design choices can enhance both the usability and measurement capabilities of wearable sensors. The hopes are that this paper will provide researchers and practitioners in human factors and related fields with a framework to help guide them in building and selecting wearable sensors that are well suited for deployment in safety critical contexts.

Perceptions and Attitudes Toward the Use of Wearable Technology in the Dance Studio Environment

Introduction: Wearable technology (WT) has become common place in sport. Increased affordability has allowed WT to reach the wrists and bodies of grassroots and community athletes. While WT is commonly used by sport populations to monitor training load, the use of WT among dancers and dance teachers is unknown. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to explore the perspectives of dancers, dance teachers, and dance parents on using WT in the dance studio environment. Methods: Dancers (aged 14+), dance teachers (aged 18+), and dance parents (with a child <18 years registered in a dance program) were recruited from local dance studios (including those offering vocational programs and/or professional training opportunities), and dance retail stores. Participants provided informed consent/assent and completed a one-time online survey about their attitudes, self-efficacy, motivations, barriers, and current practices of using WT in the studio. Results: Sixty-seven participants (19 dancers, 32 dance teachers, and 16 dance parents) completed the survey. Attitudes toward using WT were similar across all groups (mean score range = 34-38/45). Thirteen dancers (68%), 29 teachers (91%), and 7 dance parents reporting on behalf of their children (47%) were permitted to use WT in the studio. Smartwatches were the most common WT used in the studio by dancers (7/9) and teachers (13/17), while dance parents reported that their children primarily used wristband activity trackers (3/4). Among all groups, the primary reason for using WT was to track personalized training data, with calories, total duration, and heart rate being the most important perceived metrics for improving dancing. Conclusion: Across all groups, attitudes toward WT were modest. Prevalence of WT use in the dance studio varied, with wrist-based gadgets being the most common. As WT research continues in dance populations, it will be important for future studies to consider studio permissions as well as participants' existing WT use practices.

Validity of IMU measurements on running kinematics in non-rearfoot strike runners across different speeds

This study aims to determine the validity of the lower extremity joint kinematics measured by inertial measurement units (IMUs) in non-rearfoot strike pattern (NRFS) runners across different speeds. Fifteen NRFS runners completed three 2-min running tests on a treadmill in random order at 8, 10 and 12 km/h, whilst data were synchronously collected using the IMU system and an optical motion capture system. Before the offset was corrected, the validity of the knee angle waveform was higher than that of the hip and ankle; after the offset was corrected, the validity increased in all three joints. The correlation between the touchdown angles in the sagittal plane measured by the two systems was relatively high after the offset was corrected. The running speed influenced the offset-corrected measurements, with higher error values at higher speeds. The IMU system was able to provide measurements of running kinematics in the sagittal plane of NRFS runners at different running speeds but was unable to reliably measure motion in the frontal and horizontal planes. Future research should analyse the 3D gait of NRFS runners under a larger range of speed conditions to provide evidentiary support for the use of IMUs in running analysis outside the laboratory.

Sensitiveness of Variables Extracted from a Fitness Smartwatch to Detect Changes in Vertical Impact Loading during Outdoors Running

Accelerometry is becoming a popular method to access human movement in outdoor conditions. Running smartwatches may acquire chest accelerometry through a chest strap, but little is known about whether the data from these chest straps can provide indirect access to changes in vertical impact properties that define rearfoot or forefoot strike. This study assessed whether the data from a fitness smartwatch and chest strap containing a tri-axial accelerometer (FS) is sensible to detect changes in running style. Twenty-eight participants performed 95 m running bouts at ~3 m/s in two conditions: normal running and running while actively reducing impact sounds (silent running). The FS acquired running cadence, ground contact time (GCT), stride length, trunk vertical oscillation (TVO), and heart rate. Moreover, a tri-axial accelerometer attached to the right shank provided peak vertical tibia acceleration (PKACC). The running parameters extracted from the FS and PKACC variables were compared between normal and silent running. Moreover, the association between PKACC and smartwatch running parameters was accessed using Pearson correlations. There was a 13 ± 19% reduction in PKACC (p < 0.005), and a 5 ± 10% increase in TVO from normal to silent running (p < 0.01). Moreover, there were slight reductions (~2 ± 2%) in cadence and GCT when silently running (p < 0.05). However, there were no significant associations between PKACC and the variables extracted from the FS (r < 0.1, p > 0.05). Therefore, our results suggest that biomechanical variables extracted from FS have limited sensitivity to detect changes in running technique. Moreover, the biomechanical variables from the FS cannot be associated with lower limb vertical loading.

A qualitative examination of the factors affecting the adoption of injury focused wearable technologies in recreational runners

Purpose

Understanding the perceived efficacy and ease of use of technologies will influence initial adoption and sustained utilization. The objectives of this study were to determine the metrics deemed important by runners for monitoring running-related injury (RRI) risk, and identify the facilitators and barriers to their use of injury focused wearable technologies.

Methods

A qualitative focus group study was undertaken. Nine semi-structured focus groups with male (n = 13) and female (n = 14) recreational runners took place. Focus groups were audio and video recorded, and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were thematically analysed. A critical friend approach was taken to data coding, and multiple methods of trustworthiness were executed.

Results

Excessive loading and inadequate recovery were deemed the most important risk factors to monitor for RRI risk. Other important factors included training activities, injury status and history, and running technique. The location and method of attachment of a wearable device, the design of a smartphone application, and receiving useful injury-related information will affect recreational runners’ adoption of injury focused technologies.

Conclusions

Overtraining, training-related and individual-related risk factors are essential metrics that need to be monitored for RRI risk. RRI apps should include the metrics deemed important by runners, once there is supporting evidence-based research. The difficulty and/or ease of use of a device, and receiving useful feedback will influence the adoption of injury focused running technologies. There is a clear willingness from recreational runners to adopt injury focused wearable technologies whilst running.

Global Positioning System Watches and Electronic Journals: Are Training-Load Measures Similar in High School Cross-Country Runners?

PURPOSE

Running programs are designed to progress training loads by manipulating the duration, frequency, and/or intensity of running sessions. While some studies use journals to monitor training load, others have used wearable technology. The purpose of this study was to compare the validity of self-reported and global positioning system (GPS)-watch-derived measures of external and internal loads in high school cross-country runners.

METHODS

Twenty-two high school cross-country runners participated in the study during fall 2020. Participants recorded running sessions using a GPS watch and self-reported the running session using an electronic journal. External (distance and duration) and internal loads (session rating of perceived exertion [sRPE], average, and maximum heart rate) were retrieved from the GPS watch and electronic journal. Correlations compared relationships, and Bland-Altman plots compared agreements between GPS-watch-derived and self-reported measures of training loads.

RESULTS

We found moderate relationships between self-reported and GPS-watch-derived measures of external loads (distance: r = .76, moving duration: r = .74, and elapsed duration: r = .70) and poor relationships between internal loads (sRPE vs average heart rate: ρ = .11, sRPE vs maximal heart rate: ρ = .13). We found mean differences of -0.8 km (95% = -6.3 to +4.8 km) for distance, -4.5 minutes (95% = -27.8 to +33.2 min) for moving duration, and 2.7 minutes (95% = -27.8 min to +33.2 min) for elapsed duration.

CONCLUSIONS

High school runners overreported running distance and duration using self-reports, and self-reported and GPS-watch-derived measures of internal loads demonstrated poor agreement. Coaches and clinicians should use caution when comparing results from studies using different methods of monitoring training loads.