| Literature DB >> 22294931 |
Javier Vales-Alonso1, Pablo López-Matencio, Francisco J Gonzalez-Castaño, Honorio Navarro-Hellín, Pedro J Baños-Guirao, Francisco J Pérez-Martínez, Rafael P Martínez-Álvarez, Daniel González-Jiménez, Felipe Gil-Castiñeira, Richard Duro-Fernández.
Abstract
Several research programs are tackling the use of Wireless Sensor Networks (WSN) at specific fields, such as e-Health, e-Inclusion or e-Sport. This is the case of the project "Ambient Intelligence Systems Support for Athletes with Specific Profiles", which intends to assist athletes in their training. In this paper, the main developments and outcomes from this project are described. The architecture of the system comprises a WSN deployed in the training area which provides communication with athletes' mobile equipments, performs location tasks, and harvests environmental data (wind speed, temperature, etc.). Athletes are equipped with a monitoring unit which obtains data from their training (pulse, speed, etc.). Besides, a decision engine combines these real-time data together with static information about the training field, and from the athlete, to direct athletes' training to fulfill some specific goal. A prototype is presented in this work for a cross country running scenario, where the objective is to maintain the heart rate (HR) of the runner in a target range. For each track, the environmental conditions (temperature of the next track), the current athlete condition (HR), and the intrinsic difficulty of the track (slopes) influence the performance of the athlete. The decision engine, implemented by means of (m, s)-splines interpolation, estimates the future HR and selects the best track in each fork of the circuit. This method achieves a success ratio in the order of 80%. Indeed, results demonstrate that if environmental information is not take into account to derive training orders, the success ratio is reduced notably.Entities:
Keywords: ambient intelligence; contextual services; machine learning; sport training; wireless sensor networks
Mesh:
Year: 2010 PMID: 22294931 PMCID: PMC3264484 DOI: 10.3390/s100302359
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1.General vision of ambient intelligence aimed at Sports.
Figure 2.Data flow of the sensed data, the localization information, and the commands from the CN.
Figure 3.State machine diagrams.
Figure 4.Deployed hardware.
Protocol parameter selection.
| Parameter | Value |
|---|---|
| 13 s | |
| 60 s | |
| 120 s | |
| 1 s | |
| 3 |
Figure 5.HR evolution in three training sessions.
Figure 6.Decision engine operation.
Input data points for the next training choice.
| Next | Current | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hardness ( | Temperature ( | Hardness ( | Temperature ( | Average HR ( | Variance ( |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 140.08 | 24.36 |
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 140.08 | 24.36 |
Figure 7.Aerial sights of the training circuit.
Knowledge base data-set example.
| Next | Current | Measured | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hardness ( | Temperature ( | Hardness ( | Temperature ( | Average HR ( | Variance ( | Average HR |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 124.06 | 200.57 | 134.78 |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 131.52 | 738.09 | 139.61 |
| 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 108.78 | 323.5 | 110.69 |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 131.29 | 200.93 | 125.67 |
| 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 127.59 | 635.41 | 148.76 |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 148.76 | 183.11 | 151.86 |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 128.55 | 312.67 | 123.14 |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 153.13 | 165.6 | 155.44 |
| ⋮ | ⋮ | |||||
| 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 81.19 | 455.38 | 150.49 |
| 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 150.49 | 297.94 | 150.55 |
| 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 90.66 | 83.74 | 142.76 |
| 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 137.45 | 11.89 | 135.62 |
| 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 120.3 | 96.18 | 146.39 |
| 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 154.56 | 12.41 | 143.99 |
Course profile of a training session.
| Loop | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hardness | WU | E | E | E | D | E | E | D | D | E | D | D | D |
Conformity test results.
| Number of records | Test points | Ratio of valid decisions | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Test 1 | Test 2 | Test 3 | Test 4 | |||
| athlete-1 | 119 | 11.80% | 76.40% | 76.30% | 85.40% | 72.40% |
| athlete-2 | 110 | 10.90% | 75.30% | 75.00% | 75.60% | 83.70% |
Conformity test and algorithm performance results for athlete-1.
| Test 1 | Test 2 | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of records | 28 | 55 | 83 | 110 | 28 | 55 | 83 | 110 |
| Ratio of test points | 10.7% | 11.0% | 10.8% | 10.9% | 14.3% | 10.9% | 12.1% | 10.9% |
| Ratio of valid decisions | 33.3% | 50.0% | 55.5% | 83.3% | 50.0% | 83.3% | 90.0% | 91.7% |
| (m,s) | (2,3/2) | (5,3/2) | (2,3/2) | (3,1/2) | ||||
| Memory used in bytes | 322,584 | 472,384 | 676,240 | 3,142,544 | 317,638 | 472,072 | 667,968 | 1,056,224 |
| Computing time in seconds | 0.178 | 0.225 | 0.318 | 0.864 | 0.175 | 0.232 | 0.309 | 0.442 |
Influence of environment variables on the percentage of valid decisions.
| athlete-1 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of records | Test points | Ratio of valid decisions | ||||
| Test 1 | Test 2 | Test 3 | Test 4 | |||
| With environment vars. | 110 | 10.90% | 83.33% | 91.67% | 83.33% | 100.00% |
| Without temperature | 110 | 10.90% | 66.67% | 75.00% | 66.67% | 83.33% |
| Without environment vars. | 110 | 10.90% | 50.00% | 41.67% | 33.33% | 33.33% |