|
The 8th Australasian
Conference on Mathematics and Computers in Sport, 3-5 July 2006,
Queensland, Australia
ARTIFICIAL
INTELLIGENCE IN SPORTS BIOMECHANICS: NEW DAWN OR FALSE HOPE?
|
School of Physical Education, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
| Published |
|
15
December 2006 |
©
Journal of Sports Science and Medicine (2006) 5, 474 - 479
Search
Google Scholar for Citing Articles
| ABSTRACT |
| This
article reviews developments in the use of Artificial Intelligence
(AI) in sports biomechanics over the last decade. It outlines possible
uses of Expert Systems as diagnostic tools for evaluating faults in
sports movements ('techniques') and presents some example knowledge
rules for such an expert system. It then compares the analysis of
sports techniques, in which Expert Systems have found little place
to date, with gait analysis, in which they are routinely used. Consideration
is then given to the use of Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs) in sports
biomechanics, focusing on Kohonen self-organizing maps, which have
been the most widely used in technique analysis, and multi-layer networks,
which have been far more widely used in biomechanics in general. Examples
of the use of ANNs in sports biomechanics are presented for javelin
and discus throwing, shot putting and football kicking. I also present
an example of the use of Evolutionary Computation in movement optimization
in the soccer throw in, which predicted an optimal technique close
to that in the coaching literature. After briefly overviewing the
use of AI in both sports science and biomechanics in general, the
article concludes with some speculations about future uses of AI in
sports biomechanics.
KEY
WORDS: Artificial intelligence, artificial neural networks,
evolutionary computation, expert systems, Kohonen self-organizing
maps, sports biomechanics.
|
| INTRODUCTION |
Where we were in 1995
Lapham and Bartlett, 1995
published a review of the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in sports
biomechanics. In this, we reported no evidence of the use of AI in
sports biomechanics, although Expert Systems and Artificial Neural
Networks (ANNs) were being used in gait analysis. We did, however,
predict a bright future for the use, in particular, of Expert Systems
in sports biomechanics. So what has happened in the decade since? |
| EXPERT
SYSTEMS |
|
Expert
Systems are, effectively, a database combined with a knowledge base,
'reasoning' and a user interface. The knowledge base contains specific
knowledge, or facts, for the 'domain'. The knowledge rules can also
include logic operations, managed by probability theory, as in this
example from a hypothetical Expert System for the analysis of fast
bowling in cricket: IF 'shoulder-axis counter- rotation' is high;
THEN 'technique' is mixed (p = 0.8).
This
example was chosen to illustrate that much information is vague
- 'high' in the above example has varied from 10 to 20 to 30 to
40º in the scientific literature on fast bowling (see, for example,
Bartlett, 2003),
showing that much information is 'fuzzy'. The difference between
'crisp' and 'fuzzy' knowledge is shown in Figure
1 for fast bowling. Note that in the fuzzy representation, side-on
and mixed techniques overlap as do mixed and front-on. These fuzzy
overlaps are supported by the division of the mixed technique into
side-on-mixed and front-on-mixed.
So, as Expert Systems are good diagnostic tools and system 'shells'
are readily available, it is surprising that they are rare in sports
science. The closest thing to Expert Systems in sports biomechanics
at present is found within qualitative video analysis packages,
such as SiliconCOACH's 'wizards'. Although not, strictly speaking,
Expert Systems, these wizards do provide a formula engine that could
be used by wizard developers to arrive at decisions by taking into
account one or more responses to other data entered into the wizard;
whether this provision is used is up to the wizard developer. This
reality conflicts with the positive view of the utility of Expert
Systems by Lapham and Bartlett, 1995.
The use of Expert Systems in gait analysis (e.g. Bekey et al., 1992)
suggests an extension to the analysis of sports techniques; both
are branches of biomechanics. In gait analysis, however, there is
a strong developmental motivation - patient health - which helps
to attract funding. Clinicians are expensive, making investment
in complex software development worthwhile financially. Gait analysis
is a confined expert domain - gait and its variants with many experts.
It is laboratory-based, so automatic
marker
tracking systems are commonplace and data are abundant. Analysis
of sports techniques is more complex than gait analysis and there
is a weak developmental motivation: research into sport performance
is not well funded. Coaches and sport scientists are not expensive;
technique analysis is often field-based, preventing the automatic
tracking of markers; and it is a broad expert domain, involving
many sports. There is little data for technique analysis Expert
Systems and there are fewer experts than for gait analysis.
|
| ARTIFICIAL
NEURAL NETWORKS |
|
Artificial
Neural Networks (ANNs) allow computers to learn from experience
and by analogy. They are computer programs that try to create a
mathematical model of neurons in the brain. An ANN is an interconnection
of simple adaptable processing elements or nodes. They are non-linear
programs that represent non-linear systems, such as the human movement
system, and, from a notational analysis perspective, games. Artificial
Neural Networks have nodes, which are simplified models of brain
neurons, inputs, outputs and weights. The network stores experiential
knowledge as a pattern of connected nodes and synaptic weights between
them. Multi-layer ANNs have several 'hidden' layers and normally
learn using the 'back- propagation learning law'.
Kohonen self-organizing maps have one hidden layer and using 'competitive
learning' - only one neuron is selected for weight adjustment each
iteration, based on the minimum 'distance' between the sums of its
inputs and its weight. These networks require lots of 'training'
data and, once trained, can only be used for testing, not further
learning.
|
| ARTIFICIAL
NEURAL NETWORKS IN SPORTS BIOMECHANICS |
|
Given
their usefulness for classification, clustering and prediction,
and that they are easily available, how widespread is the use of
ANN in sports biomechanics? Well, unlike Expert Systems, they have
been used, as well as in notational analysis and elsewhere in sport
and exercise science (see, for example, Perl, 2001,
2005).
Perl, 2005
and Perl and Weber, 2004
highlighted the importance of pattern recognition using ANNs; the
patterns can be tactical ones from a game, performance patterns
in training, or - the focus of the rest of this paper - movement
patterns of sports performers. In this last application, the ANN
is normally used to transform a high-dimensional vector space of
biomechanical time series into a low-dimensional output map.
Kohonen self-organizing maps were used to analyze discus throws
by Bauer and Schöllhorn, 1997.
They used 53 throws (45 of a decathlete, 8 of a specialist) recorded
using semi-automated marker tracking over a one-year training period.
Each throw had 34 kinematic time series, for 51 normalised times;
these complex, multi-dimensional time series were mapped on to a
simple 11x11 neuron output space (Figure
2). Each sequence was then expressed as the mean deviation (d
in Figure 2) of the output
map - the continuous line - from that of one of the throws by the
specialist thrower, shown by the dashed line.
The deviations for the eight specialist throws are shown on the
right of Figure 3, the decathlete's
45 throws on the left. The 'distances' are less for the specialist
thrower as the comparator was one of his throws. Note the clustering
of groups of throws, between the vertical lines, within training
or competition sessions. There was more variability between than
within sessions; for five groups of five trials, the authors computed
inter- and intra-cluster variances, giving an inter-to-intra variance
ratio of 3.3 ± 0.6. This shows that even elite throwers cannot reproduce
invariant movement patterns between sessions. The supposed existence
of such invariant patterns - which arises from the motor programs
of cognitive motor control - has often been used, explicitly or
implicitly, to justify the use of a 'representative trial' in sports
biomechanics.
Bauer and Schöllhorn, 1997
claimed that the map output reveals information about the whole
movement that is not discernable from the detailed kinematics. It
is, undoubtedly, simpler and different. What we have here is, in
effect, the detection and recognition of a pattern that is obscured
by the enormous fine detail of the multiple time series.
Schöllhorn and Bauer, 1998
reported a similar approach to analyse 49 javelin throws from eight
elite males, nine elite females and ten heptathletes. This time,
manual digitising of estimated joint centre locations was used.
Clustering was found for the male throwers - as a group - and for
the two females for whom multiple trials were recorded. Variations
in the cluster for international male athletes were held to contradict
any existence of an 'optimal movement pattern'. This view was supported
by an analysis at the 1995 World Athletics championships, with a
focus on arm contributions to release speed. The large shoulder
angular velocity for the silver medalist suggested reliance on shoulder
extension and horizontal flexion to accelerate the javelin, suiting
his linear throwing technique. In contrast, the gold medalist used
medial rotation of the shoulder to accelerate the javelin; this
movement, plus an elbow extension angular velocity at least 18%
faster than for any other finalist, was the reason he was able to
achieve the greatest release speed. However, some scepticism about
the results of both these studies is warranted in the light of recent
research by Bartlett et al., 2006.
We found, in a two-dimensional laboratory study of treadmill running,
that it is impossible to distinguish movement variability between
trials from variability within and between operators who manually
digitized joint centres without the use of markers. This would be
far worse for a field- based three-dimensional study.
Lees et al., 2003
reported the results of a study that used Kohonen maps to analyse
instep kicks by two soccer players for distance or accuracy. Joint
angles were obtained from the three-dimensional coordinates of automatically-tracked
markers. These were then mapped on to a 12x8 output matrix and showed
differences between tasks and players; these output patterns were
repeatable for the same task for one player. The authors claimed
that the output map 'nodes' were related to characteristics of the
movement technique, although what these characteristics are remains
to be determined. Lees and Barton, 2005
used a similar approach for several kicks by six soccer players,
three right- and three left-footed. In this study, 14 joint angles
were obtained from the three-dimensional coordinates of automatically-tracked
markers for 80 equispaced time instants from take-off for the last
stride to the end of the follow through of the kick. The output
maps distinguished well between the right- and left-footed groups,
which the authors stated was a non-trivial problem using just the
joint kinematics. Again, intra-player differences were small.
Adopting a different approach from that of the previous studies,
Yan and Wu, 2000
used a multi-layer ANN with one hidden layer to analyse the shot
putts of 155 throws by 31 national- standard Chinese females. The
network was 'trained' using values of 20 global and 33 local technique
parameters from manually-digitized coordinates, to predict release
angle and speed from 134 throws of all throwers; it was then tested
with data from 21 throws of 11 throwers. The errors between the
network outputs and the measured release parameters were then compared
to those obtained using regression analysis. The ANN errors were
typically 25-35% less than those from regression analysis, e.g.
0.20 compared to 0.31 m·s-1 for release speed and 0.91
compared to 1.26º for release angle. Whether such an improvement
merits the use of a more complicated approach is a matter of judgment,
although it is worth noting that regression models cannot learn.
What might need emphasizing is that the errors from both methods
are smaller than the uncertainties in release parameter values that
occur using manual digitizing, as in this study, for which errors
in release angle of ± 1.5º and in release speed of ± 0.5 m·s-1
are common. This network was then used by Yan and Li, 2000
to analyse the shot putting techniques. The authors claimed that
this showed weaknesses of technique compared with those of the elite
putters, although this was not well substantiated by the paper,
possibly because the Chinese authors were writing in English.
Artificial Neural Networks have been more widely used than Expert
Systems in sports biomechanics. In technique analysis, Kohonen self-organising
maps have been claimed to reveal the 'forest' rather than the 'trees'.
Simplification is undoubtedly an important feature of ANN, although
the ways in which we can best use the outputs of these mappings
remains to be determined. If the mapping rules within these opaque
and very non-linear networks never become transparent, as some ANN
experts predict, then explicit mappings between specific features
of the kinematic time series and the output maps may never emerge.
Even under these circumstances, however, this novel approach to
the analysis of sports movements might still prove to be a powerful
tool in the analysis of human movement in sport, such as by possibly
providing a non-linear measure of movement variability. Artificial
Neural Networks represent an important link to non-linear dynamical
systems theory; for example, Kelso, 1995
reported the use of ANNs in studies of perception and noted that
the networks model hysteresis, stimulus bias, and adaptation effects,
all key tenets of non-linear dynamical systems theory.
|
| EVOLUTIONARY
COMPUTATION |
|
Evolutionary
Computation includes genetic algorithms, genetic programs and evolutionary
strategies, and uses artificial - numerical - 'chromosomes' to simulate
evolution. Bächle, 2003
used an evolutionary strategy to optimize the joint torques at hip,
shoulder and elbow to maximize distance thrown in a soccer throw
in. This study predicted an optimal throwing technique close to
that described in the coaching literature, with the initially passive
torque of the hip accelerating the trunk forwards while the negative
elbow torque kept the forearm back. Then, 30 ms before release,
the trunk was decelerated by a negative hip torque, while a positive
elbow torque accelerated the forearm forwards. Seifriz and Mester,
2002
used genetic algorithms to calculate the optimum trajectory of a
skier, but this was only published as an abstract.
|
| CONCLUSIONS |
|
A rosy
future for AI in sports biomechanics?
Automatic marker-tracking systems allow more, and more accurate,
human movement data to be collected. This could lead to the use
of fuzzy Expert Systems for diagnosis of faults in sports techniques,
a substantial development of the rudimentary Expert
Systems currently embedded in some video analysis packages. Kohonen
mapping will become commonplace in sports biomechanics, particularly
if the technique elements captured by the mapping can be identified.
Dynamically controlled networks will become more widely used in
studying learning of movement patterns. Multi-layer ANNs will have
an important role in technique analysis, a view supported by their
use elsewhere in biomechanics, including the closely related domain
of gait analysis. Other AI applications - particularly Evolutionary
Computation and hybrid systems - will feature in future developments
in the optimization of sports techniques and skill learning. Finally,
the links with dynamical systems theory will become even more apparent,
leading, for example, to an enhanced understanding of movement coordination
and the role of movement variability. But Lapham and Bartlett were
equally optimistic in 1995 and, so far, their expectations have
not been fully realised.
|
| KEY
POINTS |
-
Expert Systems remain almost unused in sports biomechanics, unlike
in the similar discipline of gait analysis.
- Artificial
Neural Networks, particularly Kohonen Maps, have been used, although
their full value remains unclear.
- Other
AI applications, including Evolutionary Computation, have received
little attention.
|
| AUTHOR
BIOGRAPHY |
Roger BARTLETT
Employment: Associate Professor, University of Otago, New
Zealand.
Degree: PhD.
Research interests: Movement variability, novel methods
for movement assessment.
E-mail: rbartlett@pooka.otago.ac.nz |
|
|
|
|