| Literature DB >> 35295276 |
Chunyan Qiu1, Changhong Su2, Xiaoxiao Liu3, Dian Yu1.
Abstract
This paper examines the problem of athletes' training in sports, exploring the methods and means by which athletes can perform difficult movements in which they normally make minor training errors in order to achieve better competition results and placements. To this end, we test the explanatory and predictive effects of a theoretical model starting with planned behaviour and then use exercise planning, self-efficacy, and support as variables to develop a partial least squares regression model of sports to improve the explanation and prediction of sporting athletes' intentions and behaviour. An improved RBF network-based method for player behaviour prediction is proposed. On the basis of the RBF analysis, the number of layers and the number of neurons in the hidden layer of the network are adjusted and optimised, respectively, to improve its generalisation and learning abilities, and the athlete behaviour prediction model is given. The results demonstrate the advantages of the improved algorithm, which in turn provides a more scientific approach to the current basketball training.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35295276 PMCID: PMC8920697 DOI: 10.1155/2022/5034081
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Intell Neurosci
Physical training data.
| No. | Exercise program | Self-efficacy | Social support | Rotate | Bend | High jump |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 91 | 36 | 50 | 5 | 162 | 60 |
| 2 | 89 | 37 | 52 | 2 | 110 | 60 |
| 3 | 93 | 38 | 58 | 12 | 101 | 101 |
| 4 | 63 | 35 | 62 | 12 | 105 | 37 |
| 5 | 89 | 35 | 46 | 13 | 155 | 58 |
| 6 | 82 | 36 | 56 | 4 | 101 | 42 |
| 7 | 67 | 34 | 60 | 6 | 125 | 40 |
| 8 | 76 | 31 | 74 | 15 | 200 | 40 |
| 9 | 54 | 33 | 56 | 17 | 251 | 250 |
| 10 | 69 | 34 | 50 | 17 | 120 | 38 |
Correlation coefficient matrix.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 1 | 0.8702 | −0.3658 | −0.3897 | −0.4931 | −0.2263 |
|
| 0.8702 | 1 | −0.3529 | −0.5522 | −0.6456 | −0.1915 |
|
| −0.3658 | −0.3529 | 1 | 0.1506 | 0.225 | 0.0349 |
|
| −0.3897 | −0.5522 | 0.1506 | 1 | 0.6957 | 0.4958 |
|
| −0.4931 | −006456 | 0.225 | 0.6957 | 1 | 0.6692 |
|
| −0.2263 | −0.1915 | 0.0349 | 0.4958 | 0.6692 | 1 |
Figure 1Topology of a single-output RBF network.
Figure 2Typical training sample of the head state detection classifier.
Figure 3Accuracy of head pattern recognition versus relative size of small areas.
Results of the head state recognition experiment.
| Degrees | 0 | 45 | 90 | 135 | 180 | 225 | 270 | 315 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 0.98 | 0.01 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.01 |
| 45 | 0.01 | 0.96 | 0.02 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.01 |
| 90 | 0 | 0.02 | 0.95 | 0.01 | 0 | 0.01 | 0 | 0.01 |
| 135 | 0 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.95 | 0 | 0.01 | 0 | 0.01 |
| 180 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.99 | 0.01 | 0 | 0 |
| 225 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.01 | 0 | 0.97 | 0.02 | 0 |
| 270 | 0 | 0.01 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.01 | 0.96 | 0.02 |
| 315 | 0.02 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.96 |
Figure 4Comparison of recognition rates for different types of original feature fusion.
Figure 5Average head state recognition in different occlusion situations.
Comparison with two existing methods in terms of average recognition rate.
| Method | Method in this paper | Orozco | Siriteerakul |
|---|---|---|---|
| Average identification | 96.5% | 71.7% | 78.6% |
| accuracy |