Sports Technology

ISSN: 1934-6182 (Print) 1934-6190 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rtec20

Reliable jump detection for snow sports with low-

cost MEMS inertial sensors

Fazle Sadi & Richard Klukas

To cite this article: Fazle Sadi & Richard Klukas (2011) Reliable jump detection for snow
sports with low-cost MEMS inertial sensors, Sports Technology, 4:1-2, 88-105, DOI:
10.1080/19346182.2012.708974

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/19346182.2012.708974

Published online: 17 Sep 2012.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 93

Citing articles: 3 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rtec20
Sports Technology, February – May 2011; 4(1 – 2): 88–105

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Reliable jump detection for snow sports with low-cost

MEMS inertial sensors

FAZLE SADI1 & RICHARD KLUKAS2

1
School of Engineering, The University of British Columbia, Kelowna, BC, Canada and 2School of Engineering,
The University of British Columbia, Kelowna, BC, Canada

(Received 22 March 2012; accepted 29 June 2012)

Abstract
Body-mounted devices, incorporating low-cost micro-electromechanical systems (MEMS) Inertial Measurement Units
(IMUs), for real-time sports performance feedback are commercially available. In sports such as skiing, snowboarding, and
mountain biking, aerial jumps can be detected with these devices and performance variables including air time and
jump drop can be calculated real-time. However, the performance of currently used real-time athletic jump detection
algorithms using MEMS IMUs is unsatisfactory in terms of accuracy, power efficiency, and reliability. In this paper, a novel
algorithm for jump detection with a head-mounted MEMS IMU is proposed. Two novel methods used in this algorithm,
namely Windowed Mean Canceled Multiplication and Preceding and Following Acceleration Difference, are introduced.
Field experiments are conducted and the results of the proposed algorithm are compared with those of algorithms used in two
state-of-the-art sport performance measurement devices. Results demonstrate that the proposed jump detection algorithm
comprehensively outperforms these commercial algorithms.

Keywords: Jump detection, inertial sensors, MEMS

any complementary tools that objectively measure the

Introduction
Well-executed and stylish routines consisting of com-
plex aerial acrobatic maneuvers are highly appreciated
in sports such as skiing, snowboarding, and mountain
biking. Unfortunately, both spectators and athletes
themselves typically have only a qualitative sense of
the key performance variables (KPVs) including air
time, jump horizontal distance, jump height, and
jump drop. In competitive environments, performances
are also evaluated with subjective measures, referred to
as ‘overall impression’, by a panel of judges (Harding,
Small, & James, 2007a). During training sessions for
these competitions, in the absence of appropriate
measurement tools, athletes and coaches must rely
largely on their own experiences and feelings when
evaluating performances. Recent analysis has revealed
that sport-specific KPVs strongly correlate with
subjectively judged scores in competition. Therefore,
judges, coaches, and athletes could be greatly assisted by
sport-specific KPVs.
Video-based analysis, as in Nicolas and Tavernier
(2000), Dartfish Ltd (2011), Han, Hu, Wang, Wu, and
Yoshigahara (2007), Han, Farin, de With, and Lao
(2006), is currently the most readily available method
for coaches, sports scientists, competition judges, and
recreational users to gather objective information
regarding acrobatic maneuvers as well as to assess
style and run execution. However, video-based analysis
poses intrinsic time delay in information feedback
and is labor intensive. Due to the requirements of
synchronization of cameras, exterior orientation and
determination of the cameras’ position, and sophisti-
cated video processing software, all video-based
systems require a large amount of infrastructure as
well as considerable setup time. Video-based analysis
has, therefore, not been adapted for professional
training purposes nor for everyday recreational use
despite its ability to provide objective observations.

Correspondence: F. Sadi, School of Engineering, The University of British Columbia, EME4242 – 3333 University Way, Kelowna, BC, Canada V1V 1V7.
E-mail: fazlesadi@gmail.com
ISSN 1934-6182 print/ISSN 1934-6190 online q 2011 Taylor & Francis
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19346182.2012.708974

With the advent of small scale technologies, a
promising alternative known as micro-electromecha-
nical systems (MEMS) has drawn major attention
from the sports science community due to its light
weight and unobtrusive nature. Moreover, onboard
data storage technology along with the MEMS sensors
diminishes the necessity for tethering bulky equip-
ment. Therefore, MEMS inertial sensors, such as
triaxial accelerometers, triaxial gyroscopes, and triaxial
magnetometers, possess enormous potential for
realistically monitoring natural, unaltered, and unob-
structed acrobatic maneuvers of athletes in high-risk
sports. Two state-of-the-art and commercially avail-
able devices using inertial MEMS sensors and onboard
data storage technology are the Action Sports Goggles
(Recon Instruments, 2011) and the Sports Perform-
ance Measurement Unit (Ripxx, 2011) shown in
Figure 1. These body-mounted devices are equipped
with an onboard microprocessor and display with the
intent of providing real-time feedback on KPVs
relevant to aerial jumps. To calculate KPVs such as
air time, jump horizontal distance, jump height, and
jump drop, the foremost requirement is to automati-
cally detect jump occurrences in real time. However,
there are challenges involved in reliably detecting
jumps using the capabilities of MEMS Inertial
Measurement Units (IMUs). Furthermore, limited
processing resources and battery power cause
increased challenges for small, wearable, integrated
systems dedicated to online processing, such as the
devices in Figure 1. In this paper, a novel real-time
algorithm is presented to accurately detect jumps with
a body-mounted MEMS triaxial accelerometer only.
A significant amount of work has been done by
Australian sports engineers to automatically detect
skier and snowboarder jumps with MEMS sensors
(Harding, Mackintosh, Hahn, & James, 2008a;
Harding et al., 2007a, 2007b; Harding, Toohey,
Martin, Hahn, & James, 2008b). For example, in
Harding et al. (2007a) a signal processing technique
Figure 1. (a) Action Sports Goggles. (b) Sports Performance Measurement Unit.
Reliable jump detection for snow sports 89
was developed to calculate the air time associated with
each individual aerial acrobatic maneuver performed
during all half-pipe snowboard runs detected. MEMS
triaxial accelerometers were used as data-capturing
sensors. All accelerometer units underwent a static
calibration in three axes (up/down, forward/backward,
and left/right) prior to each data collection session in
order to align each axis of sensitivity with and against
the direction of gravity. As reported in Harding et al.
(2007a), half-pipe snowboarding generates a very
distinct raw triaxial accelerometer data trace. The
forward/backward and up/down acceleration axes were
reported to display elevated accelerations during the
aero phase of aerial acrobatic maneuvers. As a result of
the substantial increases and decreases in acceleration
throughout the run, the power levels were reported to
rise during the aero phase. Thus, jump locations were
detected and jump windows were extracted by
searching the entire trace for elevated levels of
acceleration and by utilizing a sliding fast Fourier
transform (FFT) window and subsequent power
analysis of average power levels.
A threshold-based algorithm was used to identify
the jumps within a trace by evaluating each FFT
window for frequencies ranging from 0.25 to 0.85 Hz
(as aerial acrobatic maneuvers occur relatively
rhythmically with a period of 1.2 – 4.0 s) (Harding
et al., 2007a). A two-pass method was proposed in this
study. In the first pass, the accelerometer data was
quantized into three levels/states, namely maximum,
minimum, and transition. In the second pass, a
technique was applied to discard false jumps detected
by focusing on the sport specific possible durations of
aerial acrobatic maneuvers. The duration of any
component between 0.8 and 2.2 s was considered to
be a valid aerial acrobatic maneuver. It was claimed in
Harding et al. (2007a) that this range would cover
most aerial acrobatic Air Times completed by half-
pipe snowboarders.
90 Fazle Sadi & Richard Klukas
In a similar study, a preliminary automated
feedback system based upon MEMS sensors was
designed to calculate objective information on these
sport-specific KPVs (Harding et al., 2007b). The
authors argued that the results would provide
practical benefits for elite half-pipe snowboard
training and current subjective judging protocols.
According to the method for detecting the flight
phase (i.e. the aero phase of the jump) in ski jumping
proposed in Tsutomu et al. (2007), acceleration data,
sampled at 200 Hz was stored in digital memory and
an FFT analysis was conducted on overlapping
Hanning windows comprising 256 points. It was
reported that the maximum amplitude of the
acceleration during the initial flight phase was very
large (over 2.5 G) in each local coordinate system.
In that study, the angular rate/velocity of the athlete
was also used to detect jumps. The peak angular
velocity, captured by MEMS gyroscopes, during the
initial flight phase, was reported to have occurred
0.2 s later than the peak acceleration. The peak power
spectra, for acceleration in three directions just after
take-off, were observed at 9.37 Hz. Peak power
spectra for angular velocity just after take-off were
reported to be produced at 9.37 Hz in the ante-
roposterior axis of the trunk, and at 8.59 Hz in the
transverse axis and the longitudinal axis. These peak
power spectra were granted as evidence for the
presence of a jump or flight of the athlete.
In Fleantov, Darcy, and Vock (1997), an unortho-
dox manner of sensing loft was proposed. Single and
multiple accelerometers were used to sense the
vibration created by a snowboard, skis, or mountain
bike, moving along a surface. While moving, the
voltage output provided by the accelerometer
generates a noisy spectrum over time. It was reported
that the vibrational spectrum generated during the
aero phase for the athlete is generally much smoother
than the spectrum generated while in motion on the
surface. This is because while in air, the sporting
equipment (i.e. skis or snowboard) is not subjected to
the random vibrations of the ski slope. Accordingly,
this relatively smooth spectrum was discerned from
the rest of the spectrum by the microprocessor
subsystem and was evaluated to detect jumps. The
time difference between the epochs of the end and
the start of the smooth spectrum was deemed as the
air time. Because the vibrational spectrum is affected
by the particular activity of the user, included within
the microprocessor subsystem was a means for
assessing boundary conditions of the spectrum. For
excluding certain conditions from determining the
air time, a lower boundary of 500 ms and an upper
boundary of 5 s were fixed. Any events with elapsed
time duration outside this boundary condition are
excluded from the jump determination process.
The majority of the state-of-the-art techniques for
jump detection are based on common platforms, such
as the FFT. Unfortunately, none of the current
techniques satisfactorily provide suitable real-time
feedback. The significant characteristics of current
methods which are not conducive to the application of
devices such as the Action Sports Goggle and Sports
Performance Measurement Unit are now discussed.
1. An online (real-time and onboard) algorithm to
detect jumps should be computationally light in
order to save battery power and should provide
instantaneous feedback. An FFT algorithm for
jump detection, as proposed in Harding et al.
(2008a, 2007a, 2007b) and Tsutomu et al. (2007),
requires continuous heavy processing of the
acceleration data. Therefore, FFT analysis is not
likely to be a good option for any online algorithm,
although for off- processing it may be adequate.
2. The use of power spectral density extracted from a
sliding FFT window (Harding et al., 2008a,
2007a, 2007b; Tsutomu et al., 2007) for detecting
jumps is heavily dependent upon the window size
and its position relative to the abrupt change in
acceleration. The expected high power may not
even be captured if the window size is not accurate.
However, no criterion was proposed in the related
papers for choosing the proper window length.
Moreover, high power levels, due to a sudden shift
in acceleration, may continue for a number of
consecutive FFT windows. In such cases, deter-
mination of the proper epoch for jump start or
jump end becomes ambiguous.
3. In most of the accelerometer data-based
jump detection techniques, sensor calibration and
bias correction are necessary. However, sensor
calibration before using a body-mounted device like
the Action Sports Goggles is very inconvenient for
recreational users and professional athletes.
4. Almost all of the current methods use stringent
thresholds for the acceleration or post-processed
data, which causes the algorithm to lose generality.
For fixed thresholds to work with raw acceleration
data, bias correction and calibration are also
necessary. This does not result in ease of operation
for users when moving between different environ-
mental conditions. Some of the studies, e.g.
Harding et al. (2007a), used a very low threshold
so that no event is missed. However, this can result
in many false detections which are not desirable.
5. Most MEMS accelerometer-based techniques
(Harding et al., 2008a, 2007a, 2007b; Tsutomu
et al., 2007) work with raw acceleration data
captured with individual accelerometers aligned in
specific directions with respect to the athlete’s body.
Attaching the accelerometers in exact alignment
with direction is itself a tedious process. Moreover,

for any particular acrobatic maneuver, the orien-
tation of the body part to which the sensors are
attached is not the same for all body parts. The
magnitude of the readings from the sensor may
drastically change with a slight deviation in the
expected alignment of the sensors. This phenom-
enon poses high risk of failure when detecting
events for the fixed threshold and/or individual axis
acceleration-based algorithms.
6. Strategies such as quantization, as in Harding et al.
(2007a), may cause information loss when trying to
find the exact epoch for jump start or jump end.
7. Certain boundary conditions, e.g. 0.8–2.2 s in
Harding et al. (2007a), 0.5–5.0 s in Fleantov et al.
(1997), were set to distinguish jumps from other
events, such as abrupt head movements when the
IMU is mounted on the head. However, small
jumps with air time less than these lower boundaries
are frequently reported, especially for nonprofes-
sional athletes. Therefore, the use of these
boundary conditions limits the use of the
jump detection algorithm.
8. Results shown in Harding et al. (2008a, 2007a,
2007b, Tsutomu et al. (2007) and Fleantov et al.
(1997) are mostly for very well-behaved data.
However, it is well known that low-cost IMU
sensors produce very noisy readings. It is quite
common for low-cost IMU sensors to produce
readings with true features buried under noise such
as thermomechanical noise, bias and flicker noise
(Titterton & Weston, 2004; Woodman, 2007).
Movement artifacts also frequently arise due to
rapid movements executed by athletes to maintain
balance or to add an extra component of style to
their acrobatic performance. All these undesired
signal attributes should be accounted for by any
robust algorithm.
9. In Fleantov et al. (1997), it was assumed that the
acceleration spectrum is always smooth during the
flight phase of the athlete. However, this is often not
the case for jumps with complex acrobatic
maneuvers such as spinning and flipping. These
extra acrobatic components during the aero phase
will cause the IMU sensor data to lose its spectral
smoothness.
In this study, a new algorithm incorporating two
novel methods, namely Windowed Mean Canceled
Multiplication (WMCM) and Preceding and Follow-
ing Acceleration Difference (PFAD), is presented for
online jump detection. These methods are compu-
tationally easier to implement than the FFT-based
algorithms currently described in the literature.
Neither sensor calibration nor any rigid sensor
alignment is needed for the proposed jump detection
algorithm. The algorithm is also independent of
MEMS sensor bias errors (Walchko & Mason, 2002).
Reliable jump detection for snow sports 91
The proposed algorithm uses no boundary con-
ditions and, therefore, does not suffer from the
corresponding drawbacks, such as a failure to detect
jumps with small air time. Field experiments are
conducted to determine the efficiency and accuracy
of the proposed algorithm. Results from the proposed
algorithm are compared, in various ways, with those
of the jump detection algorithms used in the state-of-
the-art devices in Figure 1. Due to proprietary
reasons, the algorithms of these devices cannot be
described. For convenience, these algorithms are
termed as Algo 1 for the Action Sport Goggles and
Algo 2 for the Sports Performance Measurement
Unit. Experimental results show that the proposed
algorithm has comprehensive superiority over Algo 1
and Algo 2 . In the rest of this paper, the WMCM and
PFAD methods are first described. Then, the entire
jump detection algorithm is described along with the
different jump characteristics and threshold determi-
nation schemes. Finally, field experiments and
comparison results are presented.
Accelerometer data
Ideally, in static conditions such as when one stands
still, the sensor body frame (the coordinate frame the
triaxial sensor axes are aligned with) experiences
antigravity (vertically upward), which has a magni-
tude of 1 g, where g ¼ 9.81 ms22. While in free fall, no
acceleration, including antigravity, is experienced by
the sensor body frame. Therefore, in noiseless
conditions, the resultant body frame acceleration
should be 1 g when static and 0 g during free fall.
Understanding these ideal scenarios gives insight
when observing the accelerometer data recorded
while ski jumping.
An example of typical acceleration data captured
by a triaxial MEMS accelerometer during a ski
jump is shown in Figure 2. This data were recorded
with the Action Sports Goggles which were mounted
on the skier’s head. The accelerations along
the forward/backward (anteroposterior), right/left
(mediolateral), and down/up (vertical) axes in the
body frame are termed as abx , aby , and abz , respectively.
It is significant in the figure that abx and aby exhibit a
relatively low value (, 0 g) during the aero phase, i.e.
while the athlete is in the air. Except for the aero
phase, these sensors report significant accelerations
which cause the resultant acceleration to be near 1 g.
A sudden change in acceleration is also noticeable at
the start and end of the aero phase.
It should be noted that the accelerations seen in the
three axes of the body frame depend entirely on the
orientation of the body frame. It is not guaranteed
that any specific body frame axis will capture the
sudden change in acceleration during the loft motion.
However, the abrupt change in acceleration is always
92 Fazle Sadi & Richard Klukas

Acceleration a bx
6

Amplitude [g]
4 Jump occurence region

–2
Acceleration aby
3
Amplitude [g]

–1
Acceleration a bz
4
Amplitude [g]

–2
6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
Time [s]

Figure 2. Typical acceleration of triaxial accelerometer in the body frame for an athletic jump.

captured in the total resultant acceleration a b as
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
shown in Figure 3, where a b ¼ ab2 b2 b2
x þ ay þ az .
The resultant acceleration falling near 0 g while the
skier is in the air provides an indication of the free fall
state or, in other words, jump occurrence. However,
due to the presence of noise and head motion and
disturbance signals from other activities, the detec-
tion of this drop in acceleration is not straightfor-
ward. A typical signal due to disturbance and head
motion is shown in Figure 4. The similarity in the
signal pattern during a jump and that during a head
motion or other disturbance is clearly seen. A
significant amount of noise is also present in these
low-cost MEMS sensor signals.
Sensor correlation and covariance
During steady motion or static conditions, the
recorded accelerations in the three orthogonal axes

Jump occurrence region

4
Jump
3 Jump end
Amplitude [g]

start region
region
2

–1
6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
Time [s]

Figure 3. Typical resultant acceleration a b of the body frame during an athletic jump.

4 Signal due to disturbance and head motion
Amplitude [g]
2
0
87 88 89 90
Figure 4. Disturbance and head motion in resultant acceleration a b of the body frame during a jump. These signals closely resemble the
pattern of the resultant acceleration for a typical athletic jump.
of the body frame are uncorrelated due to the
random nature of noise, head motion, and fluctu-
ations in the accelerations. However, it is virtually
guaranteed that all three accelerometers in the three
orthogonal directions will experience a sudden
change if there is an abrupt change in motion
dynamics. The forces exerted by an athlete during
the take-off for a jump and the subsequent free fall
state cause a rapid change in the athlete’s dynamics.
Hence, all the accelerometers are expected to
experience a peak (positive or negative) value during
this brief period of sudden change in acceleration.
With similar reasoning, all accelerometers are also
expected to record a local maximum or minimum
during the landing of the jump. Assuming this
rationale to be valid, the following analysis of the
accelerometer data is conducted.
The cross-correlation of two discrete time signals,
e.g. abx and aby , can be defined as
X
þ1
r xy ðkT Þ ¼ abx ðnT Þaby ðnT 2 kT Þ;
n¼21
k ¼ 0; ^1; ^2; . . . :
Here, the sampling period T ¼ 1/F and the
sampling frequency F ¼ 100 Hz. The index k is
the discrete lag parameter and kT is the time shift.
For online signal processing, the data are captured
as a window. Therefore, the cross-correlation of the
two signals captured in a window from t sj to t ej can
be expressed as
X
N 21
r wxy ðkT Þ ¼ abx ðt sj þ nT Þaby ðt sj þ nT 2 kT Þ;
n¼2ðN21Þ
k ¼ 0; ^1; . . . ; ^ðN 2 1Þ;
Reliable jump detection for snow sports 93
Signal due to jump
91 92 93 94 95 96 97
Time [s]
where t sj is the beginning epoch of the jth data
capture window (integer multiple of T), t ej is the
ending epoch of the jth data capture window (integer
multiple of T), N is the number of samples in the
data capture window ðt ej 2 t sj Þ=T þ 1, and w is the
center epoch of the window ðt ej þ t sj Þ=2.
The purpose here is to detect the epoch of the highest
correlation between any of the two accelerometer
signals, given that one expects two or more accel-
erometers to be highly correlated at jump start and
jump end. The region of simultaneous high correlation
in all the acceleration signals is very brief in span.
Therefore, the cross-correlation at zero lag, i.e. r wxy ð0Þ,
is the main focus of interest for each window. Figure 5
shows the cross-correlation of abx and aby for the data
shown in Figure 2. For convenience, the cross-
correlation values are plotted against the center epoch
of the pertinent window. The window size, t ej 2 t sj , is
0.6 s and is empirically chosen to produce best results.
The peak values at the jump start and jump end regions
ð1Þ are clearly seen in this cross-correlation plot. Hence, it
proves the hypothesis that the acceleration signals are
highly correlated during the start and end of the
aero phase due to the abrupt change in the dynamics
involved.
In Figure 5, undesired fluctuations with consider-
able magnitude are present before and after the
jump region. The nonzero average value of the
sensor signal causes the high cross-correlation
value. Moreover, as accelerometer values are very
low during a jump, it is possible to miss a cross-
correlation peak if one of the accelerometer values is
ð2Þ essentially zero. To overcome these difficulties, the
covariance of the sensor signals may be used instead.
The covariance of two discrete time signals abx and aby
94 Fazle Sadi & Richard Klukas

60

xy(0) [g ]
Jump occurrence region Peak near

2
50 landing

Correlation value at zero lag, rw

40

30

20

10

–10
Peak near
–20 take-off

6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
Center epoch of the cross-correlation window, w [s]

Figure 5. Cross-correlation at zero lag of windowed abx and aby .

can be defined as smoother than what is seen in the cross-correlation

plot. Therefore, the covariance of the sensor signals is
(
X
N 21 a better tool for jump detection. The presence of a
cwxy ðkT Þ ¼ abx ðt sj þ nT Þ peak with high magnitude is also noticed after the
n¼2ðN21Þ peak near take-off at a time of 21 s. These scenarios
) (
1 NX
21
may appear due to the two extremes (one minimum
2 a ðt þ nT Þ
aby ðt sj þ nT 2 kT Þ
b j
N n¼0 x s and one maximum) experienced by the acceler-
) ometers involved in jump take-off and landing.
1 NX
21
b j The acceleration experienced by the body frame
2 a ðt þ nT Þ ;
N n¼0 y s depends entirely on the orientation and direction of
k ¼ 0; ^1; . . . ; ^ðN 2 1Þ: the forces involved in the jump. Consequently, the
covariance will differ significantly depending on the
ð3Þ
selection of the two sensor signals for any particular
Figure 6 shows the covariance of abx and aby at zero lag, jump. Moreover, when using the covariance value, it is
cwxy ð0Þ, versus the center epoch of the window. only possible to predict the jump start and jump end
Similarly, in this plot the peaks near jump start and epochs with an accuracy no better than that the
jump end are prominently distinguishable. Moreover, covariance window length. Reducing the window
it is apparent that the region neighboring the jump is length, however, will diminish the distinct features of

8
Jump occurrence region
6
xy(0) [g ]
2

4
Covariance value at zero lag, cw

2 Relatively smoother region neighbouring jump

–2
Peak near
–4 take-off

–6 Peak
near
–8 landing

6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
Center epoch of the covariance window, w [s]

Figure 6. Covariance at zero lag of windowed abx and aby .

 Reliable jump detection for snow sports 95

the covariance near the jump region. Exploiting the WMCM values for the acceleration data set of
concept of covariance, a novel intuitive method that Figure 2. It is evident that near the take-off and
can overcome the above problems is presented in the landing regions, the WMCM value exhibits a very
next section. large magnitude. In regions other than the
jump region, the WMCM values are very low in
magnitude and change little. Therefore, with a
Windowed Mean Canceled Multiplication
suitable threshold for WMCM, jump occurrence
From the previous discussion, it is understood that can be detected and this facilitates a good estimate of
all three accelerometer signals should be involved in the jump start and jump end epochs. However, a high
the jump detection algorithm to overcome the WMCM value due to disturbances and abrupt head
problem pertaining to the orientation uncertainty of motions is also observed in Figure 7. To verify the
the body frame. Another key factor is that the high validity of any high WMCM value which may indicate
peak value of the covariance is predominately due to a jump occurrence, a complementary method is
a very small number of epochs which fall within the presented in the next section.
brief time span of the event ‘jump start’ or ‘jump end’.
Based on these rationales, the novel WMCM method
Preceding and Following Acceleration
is proposed. WMCM of the three acceleration signals
Difference
abx , aby , and abz captured in the jth window spanning
from t sj to t ej is defined as In a static state or during motion with little change in
the dynamics, the resultant acceleration of an athlete,
( )
X
1 N21 a b, exhibits noisy characteristics with a steady mean.
mxyz ðt sj þ nT Þ ¼ þ nT Þ 2 b j
abx ðt sj
a ðt þ pT Þ
Therefore, the average values of the resultant accel-
N p¼0 x s
( ) eration over consecutive windows should not differ
b j 1 NX
21
b j
much if there is no abrupt change in the resultant
ay ðt s þ nT Þ 2 a ðt þ pT Þ
acceleration. However, at the jump occurrence region,
N p¼0 y s
( ) the average value of the resultant acceleration falls
b j 1 NX
21
b j drastically. If a time epoch tI is selected near the take-off
az ðt s þ nT Þ 2 a ðt þ pT Þ ; or landing region for a b, the neighboring accelerations
N p¼0 z s
preceding and following tI are likely to differ
n ¼ 0; 1; 2; . . . ; N 2 1: significantly. This difference in the preceding and
ð4Þ following accelerations serves as an effective tool for
jump detection.
Since, for a particular window, the terms in Eq. (4) PFAD is computed considering a certain window
are multiplied and not added, the information for around the point of interest. Figure 8 shows the
epochs with higher correlation values is not lost. The PFAD windows of a b for a point of interest at epoch
involvement of accelerations from all three axes also tI near the take-off region. LIpw and LIfw are the lengths
ensures that a change in dynamics is captured of the windows preceding and following tI, respect-
regardless of sensor orientation. Figure 7 shows the ively. The average resultant acceleration captured

3.5

3 Jump occurrence region

WMCM value, mwxyz(ts + nT) [g3]

2.5

2
High WMCM value Landing
1.5 due to other activities region

0.5 Take-off region

–0.5
6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
ts + nT [s]

Figure 7. WMCM of abx , aby , and abz .

96 Fazle Sadi & Richard Klukas
4 abI
Amplitude of ab [g]
3
0 interest at
–1
6 8 10
Figure 8. Windows for PFAD around a point of interest near take-off.
within the windows preceding and following tI is
termed a
bI
pw and a
bI
fw , respectively. PFAD at tI is the
difference of these two averages. Therefore, the
PFAD of a b for any point of interest at epoch tI,
where tI is an integer multiple of T, can be defined as
PNLIpw PNLIfw
b n¼1 a b ðt I þ nT Þ n¼1
da ðt I Þ ¼ 2 then tI is near the jump start or the take-off. On the
NLIpw
¼ a
bI
bI
pw 2 a fw
where NLIpw ¼ LIpw =T and NLIfw ¼ LIfw =T are the
number of samples within the windows of length LIpw
and LIfw , respectively.
It is clear from the captured acceleration magni-
tude that the average resultant acceleration within the
preceding window a
bI pw will be significantly greater
than the average resultant acceleration within the
following window a
bI
fw. The opposite scenario will be
observed if tI is near the landing region. Therefore,
da b ðt I Þ should be a maximum if tI is near take-off and
a minimum if tI is near landing. At any other position
except these two, the PFAD value da b ðt I Þ is not
expected to exhibit any considerable magnitude.
Figure 9 shows the PFAD values for the resultant
acceleration of Figure 3. For this example, the
window lengths LIpw and LIfw are set to 0.6 s. Selection
of this window length depends on the jump category,
which is explained in Section 6.4. A maximum and a
minimum with large magnitude are evident near the
jump start and the jump end, respectively. Another
minimum just before the take-off and another
maximum just after the landing are also evident.
These peak PFAD values appear due to the gain in
acceleration (mostly vertically upward and forward)
just before take-off and the gain in acceleration
(mostly vertically upward and backward) just after
pw a
bI
Preceding fw Following
window window
of length LIpw of length LIfw
Point of
epoch tI
12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
Time [s]
landing. Apart from the jump occurrence region, the
PFAD value da b ðt I Þ is generally small and varies little.
Therefore, PFAD provides a powerful tool for
detecting any jump occurrence. To be more specific,
from the PFAD value it is possible to determine
whether tI is near the jump start or the jump end.
If da b ðt I Þ is positive with a significant magnitude,
a b ðt I 2 nT Þ
NLIfw
other hand, if tI is negative with a significant
magnitude, then tI is near the jump end or landing.
Jump detection
Using the novel concepts of WMCM and PFAD, a
jump detection algorithm is proposed in this section.
The algorithm consists of two main steps:
. Step 1. Detect jump occurrence with WMCM.
. Step 2. Check the validity of the jump detection
with PFAD.
Detection through WMCM
Data from the accelerometers in the three orthogonal
axes of the body frame are captured in a window of
(t ej 2 t sj ) ¼ NT ¼ 0.6 s. For each window, the
WMCM value of mxyz ðt sj þ nT Þ for n ¼ 0, 1, 2, . . . ,
N 2 1 is calculated. Then, the maximum value of
mxyz ðt sj þ nT Þ for each window is compared with a
predefined threshold thm . If, for a particular window,
the maximum value of mxyz ðt sj þ nT Þ is greater than
or equal to thm , a Jump Indication (JI) is considered
to have been detected at the corresponding time
epoch t JI ¼ t sj þ njmax T . Here, njmax is the index of the
maximum WMCM value for the jth window. To
ensure that the maximum WMCM value in a
potential locality is considered as JI, the maximum
 Reliable jump detection for snow sports 97

PFAD value of the resultant acceleration dab(tI) [g]

Maxima near take-off
1.5 Maxima
after
1 landing
Jump occurrence region
0.5

–0.5
Minima
–1 Minima before take-off near
landing
–1.5

–2
6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
tI [s]

Figure 9. PFAD value of the resultant acceleration a b before, during, and after a jump.

value of mxyz ðt jþ1s þ nT Þ, i.e. maximum WMCM For the data captured by the Sports Performance
value of the following window, is compared with the Measurement Unit, which is strapped to the leg of
mxyz ðt JI Þ. If the maximum value of mxyz ðt jþ1
s þ nT Þ the athlete, the opposite is true. That is, the WMCM
is greater than mxyz ðt JI Þ, the epoch of JI is updated value near the jump start is consistently greater than
to t JI ¼ t jþ1s þ njþ1
max T. Otherwise, the previous or equal to the WMCM value near the jump end.
value for t JI is preserved. Thus, an indication of This is because different body parts experience
jump occurrence, JI, is detected primarily through different changes in dynamics during maneuvers.
WMCM and t JI is passed to the next step for Consequently, acceleration sensors capture different
verification. acceleration values depending on where the sensors
are mounted. Therefore, the threshold for the
WMCM value should be set taking into account
WMCM threshold the dynamics of the specific body part to which the
It is important to note that detection of either sensor is attached.
jump start or jump end is adequate for successful
detection of jump occurrence. Depending on where
Validity check through PFAD
the sensors are mounted, the relative magnitude of
the WMCM value near the jump start and the If a JI is detected by the WMCM procedure, the
jump end may differ. It has been empirically found resultant acceleration a b is calculated from the three
that, for the Action Sports Goggles where the sensors axes’ acceleration data captured. Then the PFAD
are mounted on the head, the WMCM value near the value of a b at t JI , da b t JI , is calculated and compared
jump end is consistently greater than or equal to that with a predefined threshold thd . The selection
observed near the jump start. For example, the procedure of thd is demonstrated in Section 6.5. If
magnitude of the WMCM value near landing in the magnitude of the PFAD value, jda b t JI j, is greater
Figure 7 is much higher than the magnitude observed than thd the detected JI is considered a valid
near take-off. Therefore, to be more resistive to false jump detection. Otherwise, the detected JI is
JI detection and to reduce power consumption, the discarded as a false jump indication. It is also
threshold thm is set to a higher value. This should possible to determine whether the JI is near take-off
ensure detection of JI only near the jump end or or landing from the sign of da b t JI as discussed above.
landing. As a result, any JI near the jump start will Figure 10 summarizes the concept of the proposed
not necessarily be detected. However, if a JI is jump detection algorithm. The plotted WMCM
detected near the jump start, the corresponding JI at value mxyz is shifted by 2 2 g 3 for visual convenience.
the jump end is ignored such that only one JI per The high WMCM value will primarily report JIs at
jump is detected. The sign of the PFAD value at t JI , the jump start and jump end. Both JIs will be
dab ðt JI Þ, is used to determine whether the JI is near validated by the high value of PFAD at correspond-
the jump start or jump end. For the results presented ing t JI . It should be noted that another JI will be
here, the threshold thm was set to a heuristically reported in the first step due to the high WMCM
optimum value of 0.20 g 3. value near 9.5 s. This detected JI will be discarded in
98 Fazle Sadi & Richard Klukas
Resultant acceleration ab
5
4 Take-off
False Jump Indication
3
ab [g], dab [g], mxyz [g3]
–1
–2
–3
6 8 10 12
Figure 10. Proposed jump detection using WMCM and PFAD. Note: mxyz is shifted by 22 g 3 for visual convenience.
the second step, as the PFAD value at the
corresponding t JI is negligible in magnitude. Thus,
the proposed jump detection method will only detect
true jumps by filtering out the false indication in the
second step.
In Figure 10, LIpw and LIfw are selected to be 0.6 s.
However, to efficiently address a wide range of jumps
with different characteristics, the span of the PFAD
windows can be varied. Depending on the accelera-
tion variation characteristics at the epochs neighbor-
ing the detected t JI , JI can be divided into two
categories, namely high disturbance JI and low
disturbance JI. Both of these categories can also be
subdivided into two further categories, high impact JI
and low impact JI. Depending on the JI category, the
threshold value, thd , for the JI validation process is
selected as discussed in Section 6.5.
JI categories
JIs are categorized into high disturbance, low
disturbance, high impact, and low impact. The
high/low disturbance categories set the window
length for the PFAD calculation and the high/low
impact categories determine the threshold for the
PFAD value.
High disturbance JI. High disturbance JIs generally
occur for big jumps, where greater forces are involved
during take-off and stronger thrust is felt during
WMCM value mxyz PFAD value dab
Landing
region region
14 16 18 20 22 24 26
Time [s]
landing. During such jumps, abrupt head and body
motion cause high fluctuations in the resultant
acceleration near the jump start and jump end
regions. Figure 11 shows an example of a high
disturbance JI. The trough in the resultant
acceleration following t JI is due to the abrupt head
and body motions associated with hard landings.
Jumps associated with this type of JI generally have a
lengthy aero phase. It is understandable from the
figure that with narrow windows, the PFAD value at
t JI will not be significant in magnitude due to the
trough. On the other hand, wide windows for PFAD
calculations will lessen the effect of the trough and
will produce a larger PFAD value at t JI . Therefore,
JI
relatively higher values for LJIpw and Lfw should be
selected for high disturbance JIs. For the results
JI
presented here, LJI pw and Lfw were heuristically
selected to be 1 s for high disturbance JIs.
Low disturbance JI. In many cases, athletes try to
minimize the reaction force experienced by the body
by conducting smooth take-offs and landings.
In such cases, resultant accelerations at time epochs
neighboring t JI show smaller fluctuations. Therefore,
a JI detected for this type of take-off or landing is
termed a low disturbance JI. An example of a low
disturbance JI is shown in Figure 12. From the figure,
it can be observed that the narrow window for
averaging is adequate to extract the high PFAD value
at t JI . It is important to note that the shallow trough is
 Reliable jump detection for snow sports 99

2.5 Narrow window for PFAD (0.15s) Wide window for PFAD (0.95s)

Amplitude of resultant acceleration ab [g]

2

1.5 Jump occurrence region

0.5
Deep trough
0
Epoch of JI, tJI

18.5 19 19.5 20 20.5

Time [s]

Figure 11. High disturbance JI.

not deep enough to cause the PFAD value to be High impact JI. If the abrupt change in acceleration
insignificant. In fact, wide windows may render the during take-off or landing occurs within a very brief
PFAD value to become less significant in magnitude. time period, the corresponding WMCM value tends
This is because low disturbance JIs are generally to be higher in magnitude. This is because the mean
detected for short aero phase jumps. Hence, the span cancelation process in WMCM causes the peak
of a wide window around t JI may exceed the accelerations in the sensors to stand out from their
jump occurrence region, causing higher resultant neighbors. Hence, the resultant multiplication at t JI ,
acceleration values (as shown in dotted circle in mxyzðtJI Þ , exhibits high magnitude. Therefore, JIs with
Figure 12) to be included in the averaging process. high WMCM magnitude are defined as high impact
Therefore, for low disturbance JIs, a relatively lower JIs. In this study, any JI with mxyz ðt JI Þ $ 0:50 g3 is
JI
value of 0.3 s is chosen for LJI
pw and Lfw . considered a high impact JI. Figure 13 shows a high
Depending on the WMCM value at t JI , the above impact JI along with the resultant acceleration and
JI categories can be subdivided into the following two corresponding WMCM value. The JI is detected by
subcategories. the highest WMCM peak at 40.5 s. However, it can

6
Narrow window for PFAD (0.20s) Wide window for PFAD (1.15s)
Amplitude of resultant acceleration ab [g]

Higher resultant
4 acceleration near jump start

3
Jump occurrence region
Shallow trough
2

0
Epoch of JI, tJI
–1
73.5 74 74.5 75 75.5 76
Time [s]

Figure 12. Low disturbance JI.

100 Fazle Sadi & Richard Klukas

6
Narrow window for PFAD (0.25s) Wide window for PFAD (1.45s)
ab mxyz
5

ab [g], mxyz [g3] 4

Jump occurrence region

3

0
Epoch of JI,tJI
38.5 39 39.5 40 40.5 41 41.5 42
Time [s]

Figure 13. High impact JI.

also be observed, as previously discussed, that the resultant acceleration on opposite sides of t JI for
PFAD value for narrow windows might not achieve both wide and narrow windows. Therefore, for a low
a high magnitude due to the presence of a high impact JI, the thd can be set to a higher value relative
disturbance near t JI . Similar scenarios are observed to the case of a high impact JI. Fortunately, this also
for general high impact JIs. Wide windows for makes logical sense, as a JI with low WMCM value is
PFAD will resolve this issue for lengthy aero phase more likely to be a false jump indication than a JI with
jumps as in Figure 13. Also, as previously noted, high WMCM magnitude. Hence, a rigorous false
wide windows will not work for jumps with short detection procedure with high threshold is rational
duration. Therefore, due to the variable nature of for a low impact JI.
the resultant acceleration near JI, the threshold thd
is set to a relatively low value for the PFAD
validity check. Fortunately, this coincides with PFAD threshold selection
the fact that any JI with higher WMCM The selection of the PFAD threshold thd is done
magnitude is a more eligible candidate than one through a statistical analysis, namely a two-sample t-
with a lower magnitude. Consequently, for a high test (Montgomery, 2006), for both high and low
impact JI primarily detected by the WMCM impact jumps. Acceleration data were collected with
procedure, a less stringent threshold for the the Action Sports Goggles for 27 ski jumps. Then, JIs
validation procedure is justified. were detected through WMCM and corresponding
bJI b
a
pw and a
fwJI were calculated. For jumps with aero
JI
Low impact JI. Take-offs and landings, where the phase duration well over 1 s, LJI pw and Lfw are set at 1 s.
change in resultant acceleration is constant and spans For the others, the window lengths are set to 0.30 s.
a prolonged period of time, are often observed. Depending on the WMCM value, the jumps are then
Therefore, the acceleration at t JI cannot significantly divided into high impact and low impact jumps.
distinguish itself from its neighbors. This Since interest is focused on the difference in
bJI b
phenomenon results in a relatively low value of magnitude of a
pw and a
fwJI , the two-sample t-test is
bJI bJI
WMCM at t JI . In this case, a JI with a relatively low conducted with a
low as one sample set and a
high as
JI b JI b
WMCM value is called a low impact JI. For the another sample set. For any JI, a
low and a
high are the
results presented here, JIs with 0:20 g 3 # mxyz ðt JI Þ , minimum and maximum value between
bJI b
and a
fwJI ,
a
pw
0:50 g 3 are considered low impact JIs. As stated respectively.
above, JIs with a WMCM value less than 0.20 g 3 are In the two-sample t-test, the test statistic is
not considered a valid JI. Figure 14 shows an example (Montgomery, 2006)
of a low impact JI. It can be discerned from the figure
y
1 2 y
2
that the PFAD value is likely to have a high t 0 ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ; ð6Þ
magnitude due to the constant nature of the S p ð1=n1 Þ þ ð1=n2 Þ
 Reliable jump detection for snow sports 101

4.5 Narrow window for PFAD (0.25s) Wide window for PFAD (1.20s)

4 ab mxyz

3.5

3
ab [g], mxyz [g3]

2.5

2
Jump occurrence region
1.5

0.5

–0.5 Epoch of JI, tJI

31.5 32 32.5 33 33.5 34 34.5

Time [s]

Figure 14. Low impact JI.

JI
where y
1 and y
2 are the means of the samples of a
high
bJI
and a
low , and n1 and n2 are the sample sizes. It is
bJI bJI
assumed that a
high and a
low have equal variances. S 2p
is the estimate of the common variance computed
from
ðn1 2 1ÞS 21 þ ðn2 2 1ÞS 22
S 2p ¼ ; ð7Þ
n1 þ n2 2 2
where S 21 and S 22 are two individual sample variances,
bJI
i.e. variances of a
high
bJI
and a
low , respectively. The
hypotheses being tested by the t-test are
. Null hypothesis, H0: m1 ¼ m2 and
. Alternative hypothesis, H1: m1 . m2 ,
JI b
JI
where m1 and m2 are the means of a
high and a
low . The
bJI
observation models are a
high ¼ m1 þ error and
bJI
a
low ¼ m2 þ error.
To determine whether to reject H 0 : m1 ¼ m2 , t 0 is
compared with the t-distribution with n1 þ n2 2 2
degrees of freedom. If t 0 $ t z;n1 þn2 22 , where t z;n1 þn2 22
is the upper z percent point of the t-distribution with
n1 þ n2 2 2 degrees of freedom, H 0 will be rejected.
Here, z is the significance level, which represents the
possibility of rejecting H 0 while it is in fact true. For
this test, z ¼ 0:01 or 1%.
Table I lists the two samples collected for the
low impact JIs. For a 1% significance level, the
calculated test statistic for low impact jumps is
t 0 ¼ 23:7975 . t 0:01;17þ1722 ¼ 2:4487. As expected,
the null hypothesis is rejected and it is confirmed
that m1 . m2 . The extremely low P-value of
b
3:2184 £ 10222 , where P-value is the smallest level
of significance that would lead to the rejection of the
null hypothesis (Montgomery, 2006), proves the
strong rejection of the null hypothesis. However,
the major goal of conducting this t-test is to know the
range within which (m1 2 m2 ) is expected to lie for
low impact JIs. Therefore, interest is focused on the
confidence interval of the test, which gives the range
bJI
of the difference in means of the parameters (
ahigh ,
bJI
a
low ). The interval 1:1377 # m1 2 m2 , 1 is the
calculated 100ð1 2 zÞ ¼ 99% confidence interval of
the low impact JIs. In this regard, if a large number
bJI bJI
of (
ahigh 2 a
low ), i.e. jda b ðt JI Þj, are gathered, 99% of
them will be $ 1:1377.
The calculated confidence interval provides a
b
reasonable estimate of the value for the threshold thd
for the low impact JI verification procedure. Since a
value of jda b ðt JI Þj ¼ 1:1377 is copiously large for an
acceleration difference, a lower value can be selected
for thd so that the possibility of declaring any valid JI
as invalid is minimized. Therefore, to validate
numerous possible types of JIs, thd is selected to be
0.80 g for low impact jumps.
A similar test is done for the samples of high
impact JIs as shown in Table II. Here, t 0 ¼ 6:2140 .
t 0:01;10þ1022 ¼ 2:5524 and P-value is 3:6460 £ 1026 .
As previously discussed, the null hypothesis is also
rejected here. The 99% confidence interval is
0:4531 # m1 2 m2 , 1. Again, the lower boundary
of the confidence interval gives an estimate of the
PFAD threshold. Due to reasoning similar to that in
102 Fazle Sadi & Richard Klukas

Table I. Two sample t-test for low impact JIs. JI is high disturbance is discarded and one
Jump no.
bJI
a
low
bJI
a
high
proceeds to the next validation step.
4. After the assumption that JI is high disturbance
JI
1 0.2939 1.8681 is discarded, LJI pw and Lfw are set to 0.30 s and
2 0.4915 1.8792 da b ðt JI Þ is calculated again assuming JI to be low
3 0.5255 1.5765
4 0.4384 1.8636
disturbance.
5 0.3136 1.6200 5. If da b ðt JI Þ $ thd , the JI is considered a valid
6 0.4369 1.7972 low disturbance JI and KPV determination
7 0.3926 1.4994 algorithms are invoked. Otherwise, the JI is
8 0.6478 1.2860 completely discarded and considered to be a false
9 0.3205 1.6463
10 0.5037 1.8141
detection.
11 0.5072 1.6335 6. After any false detection, the algorithm returns to
12 0.3574 1.6188 the data acquisition mode and the WMCM value
13 0.2552 1.5931 is calculated for the new data set.
14 0.1568 1.6714
15 0.3652 1.6318
16 0.4095 1.6547
The assumption that the detected JI is high
17 0.6945 2.0160 disturbance is made earlier than the low disturbance
assumption to reduce computation. Most regular
Notes: The minimum and maximum values between the average jumps will attain the high disturbance criteria and,
resultant accelerations captured within the windows preceding and
bJI
following t JI , i.e. a
pw
b bJI
and a
fwJI , are noted as a
low
bJI
and a
high ,
therefore, the low disturbance JI verification compu-
respectively. tation can be skipped. On the other hand, only jumps
with small air time and disturbance activities will
necessitate step 1 above, and these types of jumps
the case of low impact JIs, thd for high impact JIs is set generally occur less frequently.
to a relatively lower and safer value of 0.25 g. The flow chart in Figure 15 summarizes the entire
jump detection procedure.

False JI detection. After any JI is detected by the

Experimental results and comparison
WMCM procedure, the steps for checking validity
with PFAD are as follows: Field data collection
Field data was collected to test the performance of
1. From mxyz ðt JI Þ, it is determined whether the JI is
the proposed jump detection algorithm. The athlete
high impact or low impact and the corresponding
had a Sports Performance Measurement Unit
value for thd is set.
JI strapped to his leg and the Action Sports Goggles
2. da b ðt JI Þ is calculated considering LJI
pw and Lfw to on his head. Both devices were set to capture and log
be 1 s, i.e. assuming high disturbance JI, because
raw acceleration data from the accelerometers along
high disturbance JIs require long windows.
with the GPS time stamps. These devices also kept
3. If da b ðt JI Þ $ thd , the JI is considered valid and
track of the jumps that were detected. A video camera
algorithms to calculate KPVs, such as air time,
with 30 fps (frame per second) capture capability was
are invoked. Otherwise, the assumption that the
used to record the jumps. Before each jump, a GPS
synchronized clock was displayed in front of the
Table II. Two sample t-test for high impact JIs.
camera. Since the frame rate is known, it was possible
b b
Jump no. JI
a
low JI
a
high to find the jump start/end epoch from the video and
synchronize it with the data captured with the Action
18 0.7547 2.2298
18 0.6225 1.2437 Sports Goggles and the Sports Performance
20 0.8521 1.3228 Measurement Unit.
21 0.7997 1.2297 Two different participants conducted 25 jumps of
22 0.8587 1.3239 various types such as ollie, step-up, cliff drop, and
23 0.7796 1.6223
standard jump. The data for 25 jumps were stored in
24 0.5607 1.6255
25 0.6478 1.6595 14 data sets where 1 data set contained 12
26 0.8489 1.0170 consecutive jumps and the rest of the data sets
27 0.9048 1.9652 contained a single jump. These jump types are
described in Sadi (2011). Either snowboards or skis
Notes: The minimum and maximum values between the average
resultant accelerations captured within the windows preceding and were used for the experiments. Nearly 50% of the
bJI
following t JI , i.e. a
pw
b bJI
and a
fwJI , are noted as a
low
bJI
and a
high , jumps included aerial maneuvers, such as spinning,
respectively. and imbalanced take-off/landing. Four jumps were

Figure 15. Flow diagram of proposed jump detection algorithm.
conducted where take-off or landing took place on a
surface other than snow, such as rail. The video
serves as proof of jump occurrence while comparing
Algo 1 , Algo 2 , and the proposed algorithm.
Performance comparison
The algorithms are compared in two ways. The first
and most important is the accuracy of jump detection.
The accelerometer data sets collected with the Action
Sports Goggles were fed to the proposed algorithm,
implemented in Matlabq for off-line processing.
Detected jump logs were also available from the
onboard storage of the Action Sports Goggles (Algo 1 )
and the Sports Performance Measurement Unit
(Algo 2 ). The jump detection accuracy of each of the
three algorithms is compared with the truth data
Reliable jump detection for snow sports 103
derived from the video. The results are shown in
Table III. Each data set contains a single jump except
data set 11, which contains 12 jumps. In Table III, a
‘D’ indicates that a true jump was detected while a ‘U’
indicates that a true jump was left undetected. The
Sports Performance Measurement Unit data was not
available for the first two data sets.
From Table III, it can be seen that the proposed
algorithm is more accurate in jump detection than
the other two. Among the 25 jumps, the proposed
algorithm successfully detected 23 (92% accuracy).
On the other hand, Algo 1 detected only 15 jumps out
of the 25 (60% accuracy) and Algo 2 was only able to
successfully detect 10 of the 23 jumps available
(43.5% accuracy).
The second way in which the algorithms are
compared is the number of false jumps detected and
104 Fazle Sadi & Richard Klukas

Table III. Comparison of jump detection accuracy among Algo 1 , Table IV. Comparison of the number of false detected jumps þ
Algo 2 , and the proposed algorithm. true undetected jumps among Algo 1 , Algo 2 , and the proposed
algorithm.
Data set Algo 1 Algo 2 Proposed
Data set Algo 1 Algo 2 Proposed
1 D – D
2 D – D 1 0 – 0
3 D D D 2 0 – 0
4 D D D 3 0 1 0
5 D D D 4 0 0 0
6 D D D 5 0 0 0
7 D D D 6 0 0 0
8 U U D 7 0 0 0
9 D U D 8 1 1 0
10 D D D 9 0 1 0
11a D D D 10 0 0 0
11b D U D 11 9 10 2
11c U U D 12 0 0 0
11d D U D 13 0 0 0
11e U U D 14 1 0 0
11f U U U
Total 11 13 2
11g U U D
11h U U D
Notes: Algo 1 and Algo 2 are used in the Action Sports Goggles and
11i U U U
the Sports Performance Measurement Unit, respectively.
11j U U D
11k U U D
11 l U U D For the proposed algorithm, computational load
12 D D D
13 D D D
mainly depends on the WMCM and PFAD
14 D D D calculations whereas in FFT-based algorithms,
Accuracy 60% 43.5% 92% computational load is mainly due to the calculation
of Fourier transformations. For a data set of 5460
Notes: Algo 1 and Algo 2 are used in the Action Sports Goggles and
the Sports Performance Measurement Unit, respectively. The ‘D’
points and a window length of 60 points, the
indicates that a jump was detected, and the ‘U’ indicates that a implementation of the proposed algorithm in
jump was left undetected for the corresponding jump occurrence. Matlabq takes , 3:84 £ 1024 s to execute. On the
other hand, implementation of a typical FFT-based
algorithm in Matlabq takes , 7:28 £ 1024 s. There-
the number of true jumps undetected. This aspect fore, implementation of the proposed algorithm takes
corresponds to the reliability of the algorithm as , 48% less time to execute than the FFT-based
viewed by the end user. Detection of false jumps also algorithm. Being simple threshold-based algorithms,
results in unnecessary processor operations causing a Algo 1 and Algo 2 have execution times similar to that
wastage of battery power. Reliability results are of the proposed algorithm.
shown in Table IV for the same data sets. Here, Even though the proposed algorithm is primarily
wrong detections are defined as the sum of true developed for snow sports, it is equally applicable to
jumps undetected and false jumps detected. In the 14 other sports such as mountain biking and BMX
data sets (containing 25 jumps), Algo 1 had 11 wrong biking due to the similarity in the kinematics and
detections (44%) and Algo 2 had 13 wrong detections dynamics of athletic jumps in general. Field tests
(52%). The proposed algorithm, however, demon- were conducted for jumps executed by mountain
strates significantly better performance with only two bikers and the corresponding results are detailed in
wrong detections (8%). Sadi (2011).
From these results, it is evident that the proposed
jump detection algorithm performs significantly
better than the other two algorithms in terms of Conclusions
jump detection accuracy. Except for the 11th data set, A novel onboard algorithm was developed to detect
the proposed algorithm also demonstrates improved athletic jumps in sports such as skiing, snowboard-
reliability in terms of avoiding false detections and ing, and mountain biking using a body-mounted low-
missing true jumps. Moreover, the two missed jumps cost MEMS triaxial accelerometer. A primary
in the 11th set had extremely brief air time duration objective in the development of this algorithm was
and are likely to be insignificant to the user. to conserve the life of the battery which powers the
The proposed algorithm is also compared with the processor running the algorithm. The developed
typical FFT-based algorithms found in the literature algorithm uses WMCM and PFAD, two novel
from the perspective of real-time implementation. methods developed by the authors. These methods

do not require the same degree of computational
resources as the FFT-based algorithms that are
currently widely used. The proposed jump detection
algorithm needs neither calibration of the MEMS
sensors nor any rigid sensor alignment. In addition,
the algorithm is not prone to any of the sensor bias
errors which are very common for low-cost MEMS
sensors. The proposed algorithm does not use any
boundary conditions that may limit its application.
Experimental results show that, the proposed
jump detection algorithm successfully detects 92%
of the jumps performed by a snowboarder whereas
Algo 1 and Algo 2 , two jump detection algorithms used
in commercially available state-of-the-art devices,
accurately detect only 60% and 43.50% of the jumps,
respectively. In terms of reliability, quantified by the
number of wrong detections (sum of the number of
true jumps undetected and false jumps detected),
the proposed algorithm also outperforms the two
commercial algorithms. Algo 1 and Algo 2 demon-
strated wrong detection rates of 44% and 52%,
respectively. The proposed algorithm, however,
demonstrated a wrong detection rate of only 8%.
The performance of the proposed algorithm may be
improved with the use of redundant accelerometers,
as this will increase the accuracy and reliability of
the WMCM method. The WMCM method extracts
jump information from each of the individual
accelerometers oriented in different directions.
With an increased number of accelerometer sensors
oriented in different directions, the WMCM method
will have additional information which it can use
to detect a true jump occurrence. However, the
addition of more sensors will increase the power
consumption and cost of the device.
Acknowledgements
This work was funded by the Natural Sciences and
Engineering Research Council of Canada through an
Engage grant. This grant and the work performed
under it received ethics approval for human
participants by the UBC Okanagan Campus Beha-
vioral Research Ethics Board (certificate H10-
02174). The authors also wish to acknowledge
Recon Instruments Ltd for their participation in this
project.
References
Dartfish Ltd. (2011). Dartfish viedo software solutions.
Retrieved from http://www.dartfish.com/en/index.htm.
Reliable jump detection for snow sports 105
Fleantov, B. P., Darcy, D. D. M., & Vock, S. C. A. (1997, June).
Apparatus and methods for determining loft time and speed.
US Patent 5,636,146, doi:US005636146A.
Han, B., Hu, Y., Wang, G., Wu, W., & Yoshigahara, T. (2007,
August). Enhanced sports video shot boundary detection based
on middle level features and a unified model. IEEE Transactions
on Consumer Electronics, 53(3), 1168–1176.
Han, J., Farin, D., de With, P., & Lao, W. (2006, August). Real-
time video content analysis tool for consumer media storage
system. IEEE Transactions on Consumer Electronics, 52(3),
870–878.
Harding, J. W., Mackintosh, C. G., Hahn, A. G., & James, D. A.
(2008a, June). Classification of aerial acrobatics in elite half-
pipe snowboarding using body mounted inertial sensors.
Proceedings of 7th ISEA conference.
Harding, J. W., Small, J. W., & James, D. A. (2007a). Feature
extraction of performance variables in elite half-pipe snow-
boarding using body mounted inertial sensors. In D. V. Nicolau,
D. Abbott, K. Kalantar-Zadeh, T. D. Matteo, & S. M. Bezrukov
(Eds.), BioMEMS and Nanotechnology III (Proceedings of SPIE)
(Vol. 6799, pp. 679917-1–679917-12). Bellingham, WA: SPIE.
Harding, J. W., Toohey, K., Martin, D. T., Hahn, A. G., & James,
D. A. (2008b, June). Technology and half-pipe snowboard
competition-insight from elite-level judges. Proceedings of 7th
ISEA conference (Vol. 240, pp. 1 –6).
Harding, J. W., Toohey, K., Martin, D. T., Mackintosh, C., Lindh,
A. M., & James, D. A. (2007b). Automated inertial feedback for
half-pipe snowboard competition and the community percep-
tion. In F. K., Fuss A., Subic, & S., Ujihashi, (Eds.), The Impact
of Technology on Sport II, Vol. 20, (pp. 845–850). London:
Taylor & Francis.
Montgomery, D. C. (2006). Design and analysis of experiments (5th
ed.). Singapore: John Wiley & Sons Singapore Pte Ltd.
Nicolas, C. & Tavernier, M. (2000). Contribution to the analysis of
kinematics and energy and skating cross country skiing. Application
to the comparative study of three nordic disciplines: Cross country
skiing, biathlon and nordic combined (Comparative analysis of two
3D motion analysis system using a stick and a human model
volumic model and application to human case studies in cross-
country skiing. Ph.D. thesis). Université de Grenoble 1, Saint-
Martin-d’Hères, France.
Recon Instruments. (2011). Retrieved from http://www.
reconinstruments.com/.
Ripxx. (2011). Retrieved from http://ripxx.com/.
Sadi, F. (2011, August). Jump parameter estimation with low cost
MEMS sensors and GPS for Action Sports Goggles (Master’s
thesis). School of Engineering, The University of British
Columbia. URL http:hdl.handle.net242941971
Titterton, D. H. & Weston, J. L. (2004). Strapdown inertial
navigation technology (2nd ed.). The Institution of Electrical
Engineers and The American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics.
Tsutomu, S., Kazutoyo, I., Kazuhiko, T., Hiroshi, H., Shosuke,
M., Takayuki, K., & Manabu, O. (2007, July). Development of
acceleration measuring system with a 3-D gyroscope sensor
during the flight phase in ski jumping. 12th annual congress of the
ECSS.
Walchko, K. J. & Mason, D. P. A. C. (2002). Inertial navigation.
Florida conference on recent advances in robotics.
Woodman, O. J. (2007, August). An introduction to inertial
navigation., Tech. Rep. UCAMCL-TR-696, Computer Lab-
oratory, University of Cambridge, 15 JJ Thomson Avenue,
Cambridge CB3 0FD.