A Case Study in Upper Body Kinematics of an Elite Axe Thrower Using Sensor Technology Case Study

Main Article Content

Stuart Evans
Rodrigo Bini

Keywords

Axe throwing, Sensors, Axes, Wearable Technology

Abstract

Introduction: This field-based case study assessed linear accelerations of the scapula and elbow in an elite axe thrower in three different axe throwing techniques using two wearable sensors.


Methods: One elite axe thrower (35 years; height 181 cm; weight 92 kg) participated in this case study. One wearable sensor (an accelerometer) was located on the dorsal surface of the upper thorax between the medial borders of the scapula. An additional sensor was located on the medial epicondyle of the right elbow to capture linear acceleration magnitudes. The participant performed three different throwing techniques, namely a one hand underarm throw, a two-handed overhead throw, and a one hand overarm throw for a total of four repetitions.


Results: Significant differences in scapula acceleration magnitudes were detected in the three throwing techniques analyzed along with significant differences in all acceleration channels (p < 0.001). In contrast, no significant differences in triaxial acceleration magnitude were observed in the elbow in all throwing techniques (p > 0.50).


Conclusions: Magnitudes of scapular acceleration varied significantly depending on the type of throw. In contrast, acceleration magnitudes at the elbow displayed high variability despite a non-significant outcome. A wearable sensor could be a valuable tool to enhance throwing performance.

Abstract 287 | PDF Downloads 155

References

1. IBIS World. Accessed 25 January 2023. https://www.ibisworld.com/united-states/market-research-reports/axe-throwing-centers-industry
2. Wilk K, Meister K, Fleisig G, James A. Biomechanics of the overhead throwing motion. Sports Med Arth Rev 2000;8(7):124-134.
3. Gromeier M, Koester D, Schack T. Gender differences in motor skills of the overarm throw. Front Psychol 2017;8:212. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00212.
4. Roach NT, Lieberman DE, Gill TJ, Palmer WE, Gill TJ. The effect of humeral torsion on rotational range of motion in the shoulder and throwing performance. J Anat. 2012;220(3):293-301.
5. Costa V, Ramírez Ó, Otero A, Muñoz-García D, Uribarri S, Raya R. Validity and reliability of inertial sensors for elbow and wrist range of motion assessment. Peer J 2020;8:e9687.
6. Gogia PP, Braatz JH, Rose SJ, Norton BJ. Reliability and validity of goniometric measurements at the knee. Phys Ther 1987;67(2):192–195.
7. De Baets L, van der Straaten R, Matheve T, Timmermans A. Shoulder assessment according to the international classification of functioning by means of inertial sensor technologies: a systematic review. Gait Posture 2017; 57:278–294.
8. Evans S, James D, Rowlands D, Lee J. Using wearable technology to detect changes to trunk position and power in cycling. Sports Biomech 2020 38(1).
9. Hopkins W, Marshall S, Batterham A, Hanin, J. Progressive statistics for studies in sports medicine and exercise science. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2009; 41:3–13.
10. Masani K, Milos R, Popovic K, Nakazawa MK, Nozaki D. Importance of body sway velocity information in controlling ankle extensor activities during quiet stance. J Neurophysiol 2003;90(6):3774-82.
11. Shumway-Cook A, Woollacott M. Motor control: translating research into clinical practice; Lippincott Williams & Wilkins: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2007.
12. Robert-Lachaine X, Mecheri H, Larue C, Plamondon A. Validation of inertial measurement units with an optoelectronic system for whole-body motion analysis. Med Biol Eng Comput 2017;55(4):609-619. doi: 10.1007/s11517-016-1537-2.
13. Cuesta-Vargas AI, Galán-Mercant A, Williams JM. The use of inertial sensors system for human motion analysis. Phys Ther Rev 2010;15:462–473.