| Literature DB >> 33868398 |
Sahar S Tabrizi1, Saeid Pashazadeh2, Vajiheh Javani3.
Abstract
Psychological and behavioral evidence suggests that home sports activity reduces negative moods and anxiety during lockdown days of COVID-19. Low-cost, nonintrusive, and privacy-preserving smart virtual-coach Table Tennis training assistance could help to stay active and healthy at home. In this paper, a study was performed to develop a Forehand stroke' performance evaluation system as the second principal component of the virtual-coach Table Tennis shadow-play training system. This study was conducted to show the effectiveness of the proposed LSTM model, compared with 2DCNN and RBF-SVR time-series analysis and machine learning methods, in evaluating the Table Tennis Forehand shadow-play sensory data provided by the authors. The data was generated, comprising 16 players' Forehand strokes racket's movement and orientation measurements; besides, the strokes' evaluation scores were assigned by the three coaches. The authors investigated the ML models' behaviors changed by the hyperparameters values. The experimental results of the weighted average of RMSE revealed that the modified LSTM models achieved 33.79% and 4.24% estimation error lower than 2DCNN and RBF-SVR, respectively. However, the R ¯ 2 results show that all nonlinear regression models are fit enough on the observed data. The modified LSTM is the most powerful regression method among all the three Forehand types in the current study.Entities:
Year: 2021 PMID: 33868398 PMCID: PMC8033526 DOI: 10.1155/2021/5584756
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Intell Neurosci
Figure 1The architecture of the Table Tennis shadow-play virtual-coach system.
The experiment framework phases.
| # | Phase | Descriptions |
|---|---|---|
|
| Hardware setup | Selecting an appropriate sensor |
| The sensor placement, the sensor calibration | ||
|
| Data acquisition [ | Participants characteristics |
| Defining data acquisition protocols | ||
| Labeling and scoring samples | ||
|
| Preprocessing [ | Eliminating incomplete data |
| Time-series signals segmentation | ||
| Normalizing segmented signals | ||
|
| Processing | Networks setup |
| Model parameters setup | ||
| Training and testing models | ||
| Computing performance metrics | ||
| Comparing models' performances |
Figure 2(a) The developed racket and (b) the determined IMU sensor placement [20].
The collected data statistical specification.
| Type of participant | # | Samples | # Forehand strokes classified by type | Gender | Age | Duration | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Basic | Push | Top | ||||||
| Professional | 8 | 1080 | 360 | 360 | 360 | Mixed | 20–38 | 3 days |
| Novice | 8 | 648 | 227 | 191 | 230 | Mixed | 19–22 | 5 days |
| Total | 16 | 1728 | 587 | 551 | 590 | — | — | 8 days |
The coaches as supervisors controlled all collected data in the limited conditions.
Schema of the dataset.
| Attribute | Description | Data type |
|---|---|---|
| Sensory data | The racket movement and orientation measurements | Numeric |
| Quality scores | The average scores of each criterion | Numeric |
| Labels | The label of the performed stroke (B, T, and P) | Alphabet |
Basic information of the dataset.
| Dataset | Strokes' name | Samples' number | Percentage | Feature size |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| (1) Sensory data | Basic | 740 | 48% | 12 × 70=840 |
| Topspin | 393 | 26% | ||
| Push | 392 | 26% | ||
| Total | 1525 | 100% | ||
| (2) Quality scores | Criteria's name | Criteria's number | — | Range of scores value |
|
| 1525 | — | (0–100)% | |
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
| (3) Labels | Labels' name | Labels' number | — | Percentage |
| B | 740 | — | 48% | |
| T | 393 | 26% | ||
| P | 392 | 26% |
Figure 3The deep models' behavior according to three different hyperparameters: (a) number of the hidden layers; (b) number of the neurons in the FC layers; (c) dropout rate.
RMSE, MAPE, MAE, and for the Table Tennis Forehand stroke self-collected dataset.
| Strokes | Model | RMSE | MAPE | MAE |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Training | Test | |||||
| Basic | RBF-SVR | 4.91 | 4.81 | 0.10 | 8.70 | 0.962 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| 2DCNN | 8.52 | 6.55 | 0.10 | 20.92 | 0.987 | |
| Topspin | RBF-SVR | 2.45 | 2.51 | 0.05 | 5.12 | 0.965 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| 2DCNN | 9.35 | 5.04 | 0.11 | 5.30 | 0.987 | |
| Push | RBF-SVR | 2.08 | 2.20 | 0.04 | 3.80 | 0.961 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| 2DCNN | 8.84 | 3.84 | 0.09 | 3.67 | 0.900 | |
Statistical information of output data of RBF-SVR, LSTM, and 2DCNN.
| Models | Strokes | Statistics |
|
|
|
|
| Total | W. mean | W. STD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RBF-SVR | Basic | Mean | 2.75 | 4.88 | 4.56 | 4.16 | 3.32 | 3.95 | 3.74 | 4.07 |
| STD | 2.5 | 5.99 | 4.67 | 4.47 | 3.7 | 4.19 | ||||
| Top | Mean | 3.94 | 3.96 | 4.77 | 3.98 | 4.36 | 4.12 | |||
| STD | 4.24 | 3.83 | 5.07 | 4.26 | 5.95 | 4.73 | ||||
| Push | Mean | 2.21 | 2.86 | 3.59 | 3.62 | 2.95 | 3.09 | |||
| STD | 3.3 | 2.47 | 4.23 | 2.25 | 3.13 | 3.17 | ||||
| LSTM | Basic | Mean | 1.85 | 4.08 | 3.63 | 3.93 | 3.28 | 3.35 |
|
|
| STD | 1.69 | 5.09 | 3.87 | 3.54 | 3.47 | 3.78 | ||||
| Top | Mean | 3.61 | 3.15 | 4.00 | 3.18 | 3.43 | 3.47 | |||
| STD | 3.99 | 3.50 | 4.26 | 3.36 | 5.15 | 4.12 | ||||
| Push | Mean | 1.78 | 2.61 | 3.26 | 2.81 | 2.05 | 2.50 | |||
| STD | 2.75 | 2.04 | 3.98 | 1.92 | 2.32 | 2.76 | ||||
| 2DCNN | Basic | Mean | 14.61 | 14.43 | 15.25 | 13.13 | 12.17 | 13.92 | 12.10 | 5.97 |
| STD | 4.72 | 8.95 | 6.77 | 6.24 | 6.28 | 6.82 | ||||
| Top | Mean | 13.89 | 15.23 | 16.02 | 13.34 | 13.70 | 14.44 | |||
| STD | 7.67 | 7.57 | 6.96 | 6.19 | 5.83 | 6.96 | ||||
| Push | Mean | 6.52 | 6.35 | 6.88 | 6.17 | 6.10 | 6.40 | |||
| STD | 3.59 | 2.95 | 4.08 | 3.43 | 2.85 | 3.42 |
The weighted average of RMSE, MAPE, MAE, and for the Table Tennis Forehand stroke self-collected dataset.
| Models | RMSE | MAPE | MAE |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SVR | 3.54 | 0.07 | 6.5 | 0.962 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2DCNN | 5.12 | 0.10 | 12.37 | 0.963 |