Objective This cross-sectional study examined associations between wheelchair sprint and anaerobic power (measured in the lab) and wheelchair mobility performance (measured in the field) among two groups of wheelchair tennis players. Additionally, construct validity was assessed for both lab and field tests. Design Nine amateur and nine elite wheelchair tennis players performed a Sprint and Wingate test on a wheelchair ergometer in the lab and a Sprint, Illinois, and Spider test in the field, with inertial measurement units on their wheelchairs. Associations were assessed using regression analyses, and construct validity was assessed with an independent t test (elite vs. amateur). Results The strongest associations were observed between lab outcomes and field sprint power (R2 > 90%), followed by peak linear velocity and test duration (R2 = 77%-85%), while peak rotational velocity showed the lowest associations with lab outcomes (R2 = 69%-80%). The elite group outperformed the amateur group on all test outcomes. Conclusions Despite differences in lab- and field-testing methodologies (e.g., trunk influence, linear/rotational components), the strong associations indicate overlap in measured constructs. Field testing offers valuable insight into practical performance, whereas lab testing enables in-depth biomechanical and physiological analyses. All tests effectively discriminate between elite and amateur wheelchair tennis players.

An important performance determinant in wheelchair sports is the power exchanged between the athlete-wheelchair combination and the environment, in short, mechanical power. Inertial measurement units (IMUs) might be used to estimate the exchanged mechanical power during wheelchair sports practice. However, to validly apply IMUs for mechanical power assessment in wheelchair sports, a well-founded and unambiguous theoretical framework is required that follows the dynamics of manual wheelchair propulsion. Therefore, this research has two goals. First, to present a theoretical framework that supports the use of IMUs to estimate power output via power balance equations. Second, to demonstrate the use of the IMU-based power estimates during wheelchair propulsion based on experimental data. Mechanical power during straight-line wheelchair propulsion on a treadmill was estimated using a wheel mounted IMU and was subsequently compared to optical motion capture data serving as a reference. IMU-based power was calculated from rolling resistance (estimated from drag tests) and change in kinetic energy (estimated using wheelchair velocity and wheelchair acceleration). The results reveal no significant difference between reference power values and the proposed IMU-based power (1.8% mean difference, N.S.). As the estimated rolling resistance shows a 0.9–1.7% underestimation, over time, IMU-based power will be slightly underestimated as well. To conclude, the theoretical framework and the resulting IMU model seems to provide acceptable estimates of mechanical power during straight-line wheelchair propulsion in wheelchair (sports) practice, and it is an important first step towards feasible power estimations in all wheelchair sports situations.

Paralympic wheelchair athletes solely depend on the power of their upper-body for their on- court wheeled mobility as well as for performing sport-specific actions in ball sports, like a basketball shot or a tennis serve. The objective of WheelPower is to improve the power output of athletes in their sport-specific wheelchair to perform better in competition. To achieve this objective the current project systematically combines the three Dutch measurement innovations (WMPM, Esseda wheelchair ergometer, PitchPerfect system) to monitor a large population of athletes from different wheelchair sports resulting in optimal power production by wheelchair athletes during competition. The data will be directly implemented in feedback tools accessible to athletes, trainers and coaches which gives them the unique opportunity to adapt their training and wheelchair settings for optimal performance. Hence, the current consortium facilitates mass and focus by uniting scientists and all major Paralympic wheelchair sports to monitor the power output of many wheelchair athletes under field and lab conditions, which will be assisted by the best data science approach to this challenge.

In wheelchair sports, there is an increasing need to monitor mechanical power in the field. When rolling resistance is known, inertial measurement units (IMUs) can be used to determine mechanical power. However, upper body (i.e., trunk) motion affects the mass distribution between the small front and large rear wheels, thus affecting rolling resistance. Therefore, drag tests – which are commonly used to estimate rolling resistance – may not be valid. The aim of this study was to investigate the influence of trunk motion on mechanical power estimates in hand-rim wheelchair propulsion by comparing instantaneous resistance-based power loss with drag test-based power loss. Experiments were performed with no, moderate and full trunk motion during wheelchair propulsion. During these experiments, power loss was determined based on 1) the instantaneous rolling resistance and 2) based on the rolling resistance determined from drag tests (thus neglecting the effects of trunk motion). Results showed that power loss values of the two methods were similar when no trunk motion was present (mean difference [MD] of 0.6 ± 1.6 %). However, drag test-based power loss was underestimated up to −3.3 ± 2.3 % MD when the extent of trunk motion increased (r = 0.85). To conclude, during wheelchair propulsion with active trunk motion, neglecting the effects of trunk motion leads to an underestimated mechanical power of 1 to 6 % when it is estimated with drag test values. Depending on the required accuracy and the amount of trunk motion in the target group, the influence of trunk motion on power estimates should be corrected for.

Accurate assessment of rolling resistance is important for wheelchair propulsion analyses. However, the commonly used drag and deceleration tests are reported to underestimate rolling resistance up to 6% due to the (neglected) influence of trunk motion. The first aim of this study was to investigate the accuracy of using trunk and wheelchair kinematics to predict the intra-cyclical load distribution, more particularly front wheel loading, during hand-rim wheelchair propulsion. Secondly, the study compared the accuracy of rolling resistance determined from the predicted load distribution with the accuracy of drag test-based rolling resistance. Twenty-five able-bodied participants performed hand-rim wheelchair propulsion on a large motor-driven treadmill. During the treadmill sessions, front wheel load was assessed with load pins to determine the load distribution between the front and rear wheels. Accordingly, a machine learning model was trained to predict front wheel load from kinematic data. Based on two inertial sensors (attached to the trunk and wheelchair) and the machine learning model, front wheel load was predicted with a mean absolute error (MAE) of 3.8% (or 1.8 kg). Rolling resistance determined from the predicted load distribution (MAE: 0.9%, mean error (ME): 0.1%) was more accurate than drag test-based rolling resistance (MAE: 2.5%, ME: −1.3%).

In wheelchair sports, the use of Inertial Measurement Units (IMUs) has proven to be one of the most accessible ways for ambulatory measurement of wheelchair kinematics. A three-IMU configuration, with one IMU attached to the wheelchair frame and two IMUs on each wheel axle, has previously shown accurate results and is considered optimal for accuracy. Configurations with fewer sensors reduce costs and could enhance usability, but may be less accurate. The aim of this study was to quantify the decline in accuracy for measuring wheelchair kinematics with a stepwise sensor reduction. Ten differently skilled participants performed a series of wheelchair sport specific tests while their performance was simultaneously measured with IMUs and an optical motion capture system which served as reference. Subsequently, both a one-IMU and a two-IMU configuration were validated and the accuracy of the two approaches was compared for linear and angular wheelchair velocity. Results revealed that the one-IMU approach show a mean absolute error (MAE) of 0.10 m/s for absolute linear velocity and a MAE of 8.1°/s for wheelchair angular velocity when compared with the reference system. The two-IMU approach showed similar differences for absolute linear wheelchair velocity (MAE 0.10 m/s), and smaller differences for angular velocity (MAE 3.0°/s). Overall, a lower number of IMUs used in the configuration resulted in a lower accuracy of wheelchair kinematics. Based on the results of this study, choices regarding the number of IMUs can be made depending on the aim, required accuracy and resources available.

In sports, inertial measurement units are often used to measure the orientation of human body segments. A Madgwick (MW) filter can be used to obtain accurate inertial measurement unit (IMU) orientation estimates. This filter combines two different orientation estimates by applying a correction of the (1) gyroscope-based estimate in the direction of the (2) earth frame-based estimate. However, in sports situations that are characterized by relatively large linear accelerations and/or close magnetic sources, such as wheelchair sports, obtaining accurate IMU orientation estimates is challenging. In these situations, applying the MW filter in the regular way, i.e., with the same magnitude of correction at all time frames, may lead to estimation errors. Therefore, in this study, the MW filter was extended with machine learning to distinguish instances in which a small correction magnitude is beneficial from instances in which a large correction magnitude is beneficial, to eventually arrive at accurate body segment orientations in IMU-challenging sports situations. A machine learning algorithm was trained to make this distinction based on raw IMU data. Experiments on wheelchair sports were performed to assess the validity of the extended MW filter, and to compare the extended MW filter with the original MW filter based on comparisons with a motion capture-based reference system. Results indicate that the extended MW filter performs better than the original MW filter in assessing instantaneous trunk inclination (7.6 vs. 11.7° root-mean-squared error, RMSE), especially during the dynamic, IMU-challenging situations with moving athlete and wheelchair. Improvements of up to 45% RMSE were obtained for the extended MW filter compared with the original MW filter. To conclude, the machine learning-based extended MW filter has an acceptable accuracy and performs better than the original MW filter for the assessment of body segment orientation in IMU-challenging sports situations.

The dive start is an important component of competitive swimming, especially at shorter race distances. Previous research has suggested that start performance depends on kinematic variables pertaining to the swimmer at water entry, notably the distance from the block, the horizontal velocity of the centre of mass and the angle between body and water surface. However, the combined and relative contributions of these variables to start performance remain to be determined. The aim of the present study was therefore to develop a model to predict start performance (time from take-off to reaching the 15-m line) from a set of kinematic variables that collectively define the swimmer's entry state. To obtain an appropriate database for this purpose, fifteen well-trained, (sub-)elite swimmers performed dive starts under different instructions intended to induce substantial variation in entry state. Kinematic data were extracted from video recordings of these starts, optimised and analysed statistically. A mixed effects analysis of the relation between entry state and start performance was conducted, which revealed a significant and robust dependence of start performance on entry state (χ2(3) = 88, p < .001), explaining 86.1% of the variance. Start time was reduced by 0.6 s (p < .001) when the horizontal displacement at water entry was 1 m further, by 0.3 s (p < .001) when the horizontal velocity of the centre of mass was 1 m/s higher, and by 0.5 s (p < .01) when the entry angle was 1 radian flatter. The robustness of the analysis was confirmed by a similar mixed effects analysis of the relation between entry state and time to the 5-m line. In conclusion, dive start performance can be predicted to a considerable extent from the swimmer's state at water entry. The implications of those findings for studying and improving block phase kinetics are discussed.