PURPOSE: To compare data from conventional global positioning system (GPS-) and new global navigation satellite system (GNSS-) enabled tracking devices and to examine the interunit reliability of GNSS devices. METHODS: Interdevice differences between 10-Hz GPS and GNSS devices were examined during laps (n = 40) of a simulated game circuit and during elite hockey matches (n = 21); GNSS interunit reliability was also examined during laps of the simulated game circuit. Differences in distance values and measures in 3 velocity categories (low <3 m·s-1; moderate 3-5 m·s-1; and high >5 m·s-1) and acceleration/deceleration counts (>1.46 and <-1.46 m·s-2) were examined using 1-way analysis of variance. Interunit GNSS reliability was examined using the coefficient of variation (CV) and intraclass correlation coefficient. RESULTS: Interdevice differences (P < .05) were found for measures of peak deceleration, low-speed distance, percentage of total distance at low speed, and deceleration count during the simulated game circuit and for all measures except total distance and low-speed distance during hockey matches. Interunit (GNSS) differences (P < .05) were not found. The coefficient of variation was below 5% for total distance, average and peak speeds and distance and percentage of total distance of low-speed running. The GNSS devices had a lower horizontal dilution of precision score than GPS devices in all conditions. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that GNSS devices may be more sensitive than GPS devices in quantifying the physical demands of team-sport movements, but further study into the accuracy of GNSS devices is required.
PURPOSE: To compare data from conventional global positioning system (GPS-) and new global navigation satellite system (GNSS-) enabled tracking devices and to examine the interunit reliability of GNSS devices. METHODS: Interdevice differences between 10-Hz GPS and GNSS devices were examined during laps (n = 40) of a simulated game circuit and during elite hockey matches (n = 21); GNSS interunit reliability was also examined during laps of the simulated game circuit. Differences in distance values and measures in 3 velocity categories (low <3 m·s-1; moderate 3-5 m·s-1; and high >5 m·s-1) and acceleration/deceleration counts (>1.46 and <-1.46 m·s-2) were examined using 1-way analysis of variance. Interunit GNSS reliability was examined using the coefficient of variation (CV) and intraclass correlation coefficient. RESULTS: Interdevice differences (P < .05) were found for measures of peak deceleration, low-speed distance, percentage of total distance at low speed, and deceleration count during the simulated game circuit and for all measures except total distance and low-speed distance during hockey matches. Interunit (GNSS) differences (P < .05) were not found. The coefficient of variation was below 5% for total distance, average and peak speeds and distance and percentage of total distance of low-speed running. The GNSS devices had a lower horizontal dilution of precision score than GPS devices in all conditions. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that GNSS devices may be more sensitive than GPS devices in quantifying the physical demands of team-sport movements, but further study into the accuracy of GNSS devices is required.
Authors: Zachary L Crang; Grant Duthie; Michael H Cole; Jonathon Weakley; Adam Hewitt; Rich D Johnston Journal: Sports Med Date: 2020-12-24 Impact factor: 11.136
Authors: Hassane Zouhal; Benjamin Barthélémy; Alexandre Dellal; Sghaeir Zouita; Abderraouf Ben Abderrahman; Omar Ben Ounis; Claire Tourny; Ali Belamjahad; Said Ahmaidi; Thierry Paillard; Nicolas Dyon; Benoit Bideau; Ayoub Saeidi; Jason Moran; Anis Chaouachi; George P Nassis; Christopher Carling; Urs Granacher; Guillaume Ravé Journal: J Sports Sci Med Date: 2022-09-01 Impact factor: 4.017
Authors: Markel Rico-González; Asier Los Arcos; Daniel Rojas-Valverde; Filipe M Clemente; José Pino-Ortega Journal: Sensors (Basel) Date: 2020-04-16 Impact factor: 3.576