Pilot study II results

The data used in this system testing study came from trials where subjects were in:

• Quiet standing with eyes open • Putting a ball at a hole 4.2m away

A total of 19 trials were recorded and used in this stage of the project.

4.2.4.1 Spectral analysis and filtering

The raw data output for each trial for each system was initially graphed using MS Excel. The raw data output from each system was then assessed for signal content. This was completed to ensure that the lower sample rate of the pliance® system was not eliminating any signal content. Although postural sway studies have been published using sample rates down to 10Hz (Era & Heikkenen, 1985; Ekdahl et al., 1989), it was important to the reliability and validity of the study to be able to provide further proof of the quality of the output of the pliance® system. This exercise also proved valuable in determining the correct filtering frequency for all pliance® data collected in the future.

The data were processed for signal content using Sigview 32 Analysis

application software v 1.9.1.0. This is a signal analysis package with filtering and analysis features based on the Fast Fourier Transform algorithm.

Output of the FFT process indicated that the majority of the COPx,y signal content (between 80-90%) fell in the region below 5Hz for both the pliance® and AMTI systems. This information was calculated by summing the ASCII output from the FFT. This sum was then used as the basis for percentage content calculations for each frequency step in the output. Assessment of the signal content for each 1Hz step (up to 10Hz) indicates small differences between the two systems (Table 4.2.4.1.1). Further analysis of the equality of the systems is discussed below.

Table 4.2.4.1.1: Example of frequency content breakdown for COPx,y for each system into 1Hz bins.

COPx % signal content COPy % signal content

Hz Pliance® AMTI Pliance® AMTI

<1 58.9 58.1 51.4 66.9 1 to 2 14.7 16.5 15.4 14.1 2 to 3 3.9 6.5 8.5 3.2 3 to 4 3.8 6.1 5.1 3.9 4 to 5 2.7 3.6 3.2 2.9 5 to 6 2.3 1.9 1.9 2.0 6 to 7 0.9 1.4 0.5 0.7 7 to 8 2.2 0.7 1.4 1.1 8 to 9 1.0 0.5 0.8 0.6 9 to 10 0.8 0.5 1.5 0.3 <10 90.2 95.8 89.7 95.7

frequencies, they are similar in their signal content. In Figure 4.2.4.1.3a, the COPx signal content from each system is compared, and in figure 4.2.4.1.3b the COPy signal content from each system is compared. The vertical axis indicates signal amplitude. a. COPx 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Frequency (Hz) A m pl it ud e AMTI Pliance b. COPy 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ₁₀ Frequency (Hz) A m pl it ud e AMTI Pliance

Figures 4.2.4.1.3a and b: FFT output of AMTI and pliance® COPx and COPy for trial putt4_1 data.

The shooting study of Ball et al. (2003) used a cut-off frequency of 4Hz when filtering COPx,y data from an AMTI platform, whilst McCarty (2002) used a 6Hz cut off frequency for filtering of force plate data in the only other putting study to have utilised this method of data collection. Using this as a guide, and combined with the results of the spectral analysis, it was decided that a cut-off level of 5Hz was appropriate when filtering the data from both the AMTI and pliance®

systems, given the slightly more dynamic nature of golf putting compared to shooting, and the decision to take a slightly more conservative approach to filtering than McCarty (2002). Subsequently, both the AMTI and pliance® COPx,y co-ordinate data were filtered using a low pass digital filter set at 5Hz. The

maximum and minimum values in COPx,y were then calculated for both systems and peak-to-peak amplitude calculated in each direction. (Graphical output for each trial and summary page of peak-to-peak amplitude data contained in Appendix A).

Figures 4.2.4.1.5a, b, c and d represent the output for one putting trial, with the COPx vs. COPy AMTI output on the left (a and c), and the COPx v COPy pliance® output on the right (b and d). The effect of the filtering protocol described above was to reduce the noise in the signal from both systems, but more noticeably from the pliance® system. The higher concentration of values in the left hand images represents the higher sample rate of the AMTI system.

a. AMTI COP data (raw) 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04 COPx co-ordinate CO P y c o -o rd in a te

b. Pliance COP data (raw)

19.5 20 20.5 21 21.5 19.5 20 20.5 21 21.5 COPx co-ordinate CO P y c o -o rd in a te

c. AMTI COP data (5Hz)

0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04 COPx co-ordinate C O P y co -o rd in at e

d. Pliance COP data (5Hz)

19.5 20 20.5 21 21.5 19.5 20 20.5 21 21.5 COPx co-ordinate C O P y co -o rd in at e

Figure 4.2.4.1.5a and b: Example COPx v COPy output for one putting trial:(a) AMTI raw; (b) pliance® raw; (c) AMTI filtered at 5Hz; (d) pliance® filtered at 5Hz.

4.2.4.2 Test of equality

Table 4.2.4.2.1 compares the mean COP range values (peak-to-peak

amplitudes) for the two systems based on filtered data. These data were initially a part of a much larger group of trials where participants deliberately swayed, were required to lean to one side or to stand with eyes closed. It was felt that tests involving subjects performing different tasks, as well as quiet standing, was reflective of the future use of the system. However, different trial types created large standard deviation values which can distort the output of the test of

equality. The trials with COPx,y amplitudes less than the mean values presented in the pilot study (COPx = 29.0±15.0mm; COPy 16.8±7.5mm) for 4.2mputts were used for final calculations.

Table 4.2.4.2.1: Descriptive data on all trials (n=19).

Combined data for all trials

COPx pliance (mm) COPx AMTI (mm) COPy pliance (mm) COPy AMTI (mm) Mean 10.2 10.3 12.7 12.8 SD 6.2 6.1 9.8 9.2

Table 4.2.4.2.2 expresses the data in terms of the averaged inter-trial differences between the two systems. These difference values are expressed in terms of mean exact error (in mm) and mean percentage error when using the AMTI output as the standard. These values use each trials difference data to calculate the overall difference mean values. These data indicate mean peak-to-peak amplitude differences of the magnitude of 0.07mm in the medio-lateral direction, and 0.11mm in the antero-posterior direction between the two systems.

Table 4.2.4.2.2: Error data (exact and relative) in each COP direction using AMTI data as standard on all trials (n=19).

Combined Error data for

all trials COPx exact (mm) COPx relative (% ) COPy exact (mm) COPy relative (%) Mean 0.07 1.2 0.11 2.14 Stdev 0.32 2.4 0.81 3.8

Table 4.2.4.2.3 expresses the data involved in the calculation of significance of equality. The sample mean (M) and standard deviation (SD) values are

presented along with the practical difference of 5% (PD), effect size (d), non- centrality parameter (φ), F score from one way ANOVA, and finally the significance of equality of the two datasets (p).

Table 4.2.4.2.3: Calculations to determine equality of pliance® and AMTI systems on all trials (df 1,36) after data filtered at 5Hz.

Statistical parameters

M (mm) SD (mm) PD (mm) d φ F calc p

COPx (ML) 10.24 6.06 0.51 0.26 0.18 0.001 0.023

COPy (AP) 12.75 9.37 0.64 0.21 0.15 0.001 0.023

Analysis of the data revealed that COPx and y range data were statistically significantly equal at a practical difference level of 5%. The COP range data from the mat is equal to the AMTI plate at an acceptable level of tolerance.

4.2.4.2.3 Other practical changes arising from the pilot testing

Pilot testing indicated that some participants had a tendency to stand on the outer edges of the pliance® mat when putting or standing. That is, they would tend to stand with one foot over the edge of the sensor area of the mat, but within the limits of the entire mat area. This lead to problems with data collection for those particular trials, as for these participants it was unclear whether the entire foot was on or off the mat. This was not because the mat was too narrow, but because the edges of the mat were not clearly defined. In subsequent tests, it was important to clearly mark the outer edges of the mat and to verbally and physically ensure that participants did not stand on these edges (although this did not ensure 100% compliance from all participants).

It was also evident during pilot testing that two columns of sensors in the middle of the mat, and two rows at the front and back edges were not needed as all players stood with their feet apart, and no person had feet that covered the entire length of the mat. Thus, 56 sensors were deactivated via the novel pliance®

software. The resulting configuration given below in Figure 4.2.4.2.3.1 (active sensors in blue) allowed the sample rate to be increased to 50Hz in all

subsequent trials. This also made synchronization with the PAL video system (used in the field) more straightforward and improved the accuracy of the system.

Figure 4.2.4.2.3.1: Pliance® mat sensor configuration with 56 sensors (the grey squares) de-activated.

4.2.4.2.4 50Hz v 250Hz kinematic information

To validate the use of a standard 50Hz PAL video camera in field-based testing, 10 putts recorded on a high speed Redlake camera were digitised using PEAK Motion Analysis. Initially, the footage was digitised at the original sample rate of 250Hz, then the same video clip was digitised at 50Hz by digitizing every 5th field.

The putter head was the only point of interest in the footage and thus

represented the only point digitised. Data were initially filtered using the Jackson Knee method prescribed in the PEAK system manual. For all 10 putts, the Butterworth cut-off frequency was automatically derived by the software and calculated at either 4 or 5Hz. There were no exceptions. Linear displacement (x,y) and velocity data (x,y) were calculated after filtering and compared across

As with the analysis of the COP output, the non central F distribution was used to assess equality between the derived kinematic data methods. For these data a practical difference of 5% was used. Data are presented in Table 4.2.4.2.4.1. The data are denoted by X for horizontal displacement of the putter head (positive in the direction of the putt) and Y for vertical displacement of the putter head (positive in the upwards direction).

Table 4.2.4.2.4.1: Calculations to determine equality of video data from 250Hz and 50Hz data (df 1,8). Displacement data were calculated in cm, velocity data in cm/s.

Statistical Parameters M SD PD d φ F calc p

Minimum displacement X 14.4 11.4 0.72 0.14 0.09 0.001 0.024 Maximum displacement X 71.1 12.6 3.56 0.63 0.45 0.002 0.028 Minimum displacement Y 7.75 0.58 0.39 1.49 1.06 0.01 0.046 Maximum displacement Y 14.9 3.63 0.75 0.49 0.35 0.003 0.036 Minimum velocity X -58.0 20.5 -2.9 -0.32 -0.22 0.000 0.005 Maximum velocity X 155.5 25.5 7.78 0.68 0.48 0.003 0.034 Minimum velocity Y -16.7 7.6 -0.83 3.39 -0.17 0.003 0.039 Maximum velocity Y 21.6 11.6 1.08 0.21 0.15 0.003 0.04

Velocity at ball contact X 146 29.2 7.29 0.56 0.39 0.000 0.009

Results from Table 4.2.4.2.4.1 suggest that the data sampled at 50Hz is significantly equal to the data sampled at 250Hz for this particular skill. As with the validation of the pliance® mat, these kinematic data provided sufficient evidence for the researchers to use a standard PAL 50Hz digital video camera in subsequent field-based testing.

5 Methodology II – field based study

Having established the validity of the methodologies and calculated the required sample size, the basic data collection in the field occurred over a two week period.