Validity and Concordance of a Linear Position Transducer (Vitruve) for Measuring Movement Velocity during Resistance Training

This study aimed to analyze the intra-device agreement of a new linear position transducer (Vitruve, VT) and the inter-device agreement with a previously validated linear velocity transducer (T-Force System, TF) in different range of velocities. A group of 50 healthy, physically active men performed a progressive loading test during a bench press (BP) and full-squat (SQ) exercise with a simultaneous recording of two VT and one TF devices. The mean propulsive velocity (MPV) and peak of velocity (PV) were recorded for subsequent analysis. A set of statistics was used to determine the degree of agreement (Intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC], Lin's concordance correlation coefficient [CCC], mean square deviation [MSD], and variance of the difference between measurements [VMD]) and the error magnitude (standard error of measurement [SEM], smallest detectable change [SDC], and maximum errors [ME]) between devices. The established velocity ranges were as follows: >1.20 m·s<sup>-1</sup>; 1.20-0.95 m·s<sup>-1</sup>; 0.95-0.70 m·s<sup>-1</sup>; 0.70-0.45 m·s<sup>-1</sup>; ≤0.45 m·s<sup>-1</sup> for BP; and >1.50 m·s<sup>-1</sup>; 1.50-1.25 m·s<sup>-1</sup>; 1.25-1.00 m·s<sup>-1</sup>; 1.00-0.75 m·s<sup>-1</sup>; and ≤0.75 m·s<sup>-1</sup> for SQ. For the MPV, the VT system showed high intra- and inter-device agreement and moderate error magnitude with pooled data in both exercises. However, the level of agreement decreased (ICC: 0.790-0.996; CCC: 0.663-0.992) and the error increased (ME: 2.8-13.4% 1RM; SEM: 0.035-0.01 m·s<sup>-1</sup>) as the velocity range increased. For the PV, the magnitude of error was very high in both exercises. In conclusion, our results suggest that the VT system should only be used at MPVs below 0.45 m·s<sup>-1</sup> for BP and 0.75 m·s<sup>-1</sup> for SQ in order to obtain an accurate and reliable measurement, preferably using the MPV variable instead of the PV. Therefore, it appears that the VT system may not be appropriate for objectively monitoring resistance training and assessing strength performance along the entire spectrum of load-velocity curve.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Sensors
Published
2024-10-05
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/s24196444
Citations
3
Primary Topic
Sports Performance and Training
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
1.43
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Validity and Concordance of a Linear Position Transducer (Vitruve) for Measuring Movement Velocity during Resistance Training

Juan José González‐Badillo, David Rodríguez‐Rosell, José Carlos Herrera-Bermudo, Jaime González-Galán
3 citations
Sensors
Sports Performance and Training
1.43
article

Validity and Concordance of a Linear Position Transducer (Vitruve) for Measuring Movement Velocity during Resistance Training

Juan José González‐Badillo, David Rodríguez‐Rosell, José Carlos Herrera-Bermudo, Jaime González-Galán
article en
3 citations

Abstract

This study aimed to analyze the intra-device agreement of a new linear position transducer (Vitruve, VT) and the inter-device agreement with a previously validated linear velocity transducer (T-Force System, TF) in different range of velocities. A group of 50 healthy, physically active men performed a progressive loading test during a bench press (BP) and full-squat (SQ) exercise with a simultaneous recording of two VT and one TF devices. The mean propulsive velocity (MPV) and peak of velocity (PV) were recorded for subsequent analysis. A set of statistics was used to determine the degree of agreement (Intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC], Lin's concordance correlation coefficient [CCC], mean square deviation [MSD], and variance of the difference between measurements [VMD]) and the error magnitude (standard error of measurement [SEM], smallest detectable change [SDC], and maximum errors [ME]) between devices. The established velocity ranges were as follows: >1.20 m·s<sup>-1</sup>; 1.20-0.95 m·s<sup>-1</sup>; 0.95-0.70 m·s<sup>-1</sup>; 0.70-0.45 m·s<sup>-1</sup>; ≤0.45 m·s<sup>-1</sup> for BP; and >1.50 m·s<sup>-1</sup>; 1.50-1.25 m·s<sup>-1</sup>; 1.25-1.00 m·s<sup>-1</sup>; 1.00-0.75 m·s<sup>-1</sup>; and ≤0.75 m·s<sup>-1</sup> for SQ. For the MPV, the VT system showed high intra- and inter-device agreement and moderate error magnitude with pooled data in both exercises. However, the level of agreement decreased (ICC: 0.790-0.996; CCC: 0.663-0.992) and the error increased (ME: 2.8-13.4% 1RM; SEM: 0.035-0.01 m·s<sup>-1</sup>) as the velocity range increased. For the PV, the magnitude of error was very high in both exercises. In conclusion, our results suggest that the VT system should only be used at MPVs below 0.45 m·s<sup>-1</sup> for BP and 0.75 m·s<sup>-1</sup> for SQ in order to obtain an accurate and reliable measurement, preferably using the MPV variable instead of the PV. Therefore, it appears that the VT system may not be appropriate for objectively monitoring resistance training and assessing strength performance along the entire spectrum of load-velocity curve.

SensorsVol. 24(19)
Universidad de Sevilla (ES), Universidad Pablo de Olavide (ES)
Openalex Percentile: Top 20%
Sports Performance and Training
1.43
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.