See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/324762949

Predicting net joint moments during a weightlifting exercise with a neural

network model

Article  in  Journal of Biomechanics · April 2018

DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2018.04.021

CITATIONS READS
0 224

3 authors:

Kristof Kipp Matt Giordanelli

Marquette University Marquette University
53 PUBLICATIONS   296 CITATIONS    5 PUBLICATIONS   17 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Christopher F Geiser
Marquette University
20 PUBLICATIONS   179 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Loading and BMD in Athletes View project

Sonification in Biomechanics View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Kristof Kipp on 30 April 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 1 March 16, 2018

2 Short Communication

4 Predicting net joint moments during a weightlifting exercise

5 with a neural network model

7 Kristof Kipp, Matthew Giordanelli, and Christopher Geiser

8 Department of Physical Therapy – Program in Exercise Science

9 Marquette University, Milwaukee, WI, USA

10

11 Corresponding Author:

12 Kristof Kipp, phone: (414)288-6257, email: kristof.kipp@marquette.edu

13

14 Keywords: biomechanics, machine learning, neural network, sports

15

16 Word count: 2026 (including in-line citations)

Page 1 of 18
17 Abstract

18 The purpose of this study was to develop and train a Neural Network (NN) that uses barbell mass

19 and motions to predict hip, knee, and ankle Net Joint Moments (NJM) during a weightlifting

20 exercise. Seven weightlifters performed two cleans at 85% of their competition maximum while

21 ground reaction forces and 3-D motion data were recorded. An inverse dynamics procedure was

22 used to calculate hip, knee, and ankle NJM. Vertical and horizontal barbell motion data were

23 extracted and, along with barbell mass, used as inputs to a NN. The NN was then trained to model

24 the association between the mass and kinematics of the barbell and the calculated NJM for six

25 weightlifters, the data from the remaining weightlifter was then used to test the performance of the

26 NN – this was repeated 7 times with a k-fold cross-validation procedure to assess the NN accuracy.

27 Joint-specific predictions of NJM produced coefficients of determination (r2) that ranged from

28 0.79 to 0.95, and the percent difference between NN-predicted and inverse dynamics calculated

29 peak NJM ranged between 5% and 16%. The NN was thus able to predict the spatiotemporal

30 patterns and discrete peaks of the three NJM with reasonable accuracy, which suggests that it is

31 feasible to predict lower extremity NJM from the mass and kinematics of the barbell. Future work

32 is needed to determine whether combining a NN model with low cost technology (e.g., digital

33 video and free digitising software) can also be used to predict NJM of weightlifters during field-

34 testing situations, such as practice and competition, with comparable accuracy.

Page 2 of 18
35 1. Introduction

36 Sport biomechanists and coaches analyse Net Joint Moments (NJM) during sport tasks because

37 they provide useful information about neuromuscular control strategies during those tasks

38 (Bartlett, 2007). To calculate NJM, researchers and practitioners collect whole-body kinematic,

39 ground reaction force (GRF), and anthropometric data, and use them as inputs to inverse dynamics

40 procedures that yield NJM (Winter, 2005). The problems that biomechanists and coaches face are

41 that the gathering and processing of the necessary biomechanical data is resource intensive, relies

42 on expensive equipment, and can be obstructive to athletes.

43 A possible solution would be to use Neural Networks (NN) to predict NJM from other data

44 that can be more easily collected by biomechanists and practitioners (Schöllhorn, 2004). For

45 example, Hahn and O’Keefe (2005) developed a NJM estimation model that could be used in

46 clinical settings with minimal equipment and technical support. They used NN models to predict

47 NJM during gait from kinematic inputs, and their results indicated that demographic and joint

48 kinematic data in combination with simplified NN models could predict hip, knee, and ankle NJM

49 during normal walking with acceptable accuracy (i.e., coefficients of determinations between 0.90

50 and 0.95). Liu et al. (2009) developed a NN model that used ground reaction force (GRF) data to

51 predict NJM during squat and countermovement jumps, and showed that lower extremity NJM

52 could be accurately predicted (correlation coefficients between 0.96 and 0.99) from various

53 parameters derived from GRF data (e.g., centre-of-mass position and velocity).

54 NJM play a crucial role in the sport of weightlifting (Bartonietz, 1996; Baumann et al., 1988).

55 Not only do they provide insight into an athlete’s individual technique, but they also offer

56 information about the performance capacity of individual weightlifters (Enoka, 1988; Garhammer,

57 1981; Kipp et al. 2012a). The spatiotemporal patterns of the NJM can reflect different technical

Page 3 of 18
58 styles between weightlifters (Garhammer, 1981), whereas peak NJM offer insight into the

59 neuromuscular demands required to exert maximal efforts during maximal effort lifts (Baumann

60 et al., 1988; Kipp et al. 2012b). Collectively, these results highlight the importance of NJM in

61 relation to weightlifting performance.

62 Even though knowledge about NJM appears to be crucial, the major obstacles that preclude

63 their widespread use in the sport setting relate back to problems associated with the cost of the

64 necessary equipment and the obstructiveness to athletes. One way to overcome these obstacles

65 would be to use NN models to predict NJM from simpler, and more easily collected biomechanical

66 data. Given that barbell mass and motion data can be easily acquired with simple methods and

67 inexpensive equipment (Dæhlin, et al., 2017; Garhammer and Newton, 2013), the development

68 and validation of NN models would be a tremendous benefit to sports biomechanists and coaches

69 because these models would allow them to predict NJM of weightlifters without the need for

70 expensive equipment or obstructive instrumentation of athletes. The purpose of this study was to

71 therefore develop and train a NN that uses barbell mass and motions to predict hip, knee, and ankle

72 NJM during an Olympic weightlifting exercise (i.e., the clean).

73

74 2. Methods

75 2.1 Subjects

76 Seven weightlifters (body-mass: 106.0±13.2 kg; 1-Repetition Maximum (1-RM): 126.4±22.9 kg)

77 were recruited for this study. All subjects provided written informed consent approved by the

78 University’s Institutional Review Board.

79

80

Page 4 of 18
 81 2.2 Data Collection Procedures

82 Sixteen reflective markers were attached to anatomical landmarks of each lifter’s feet, shanks,

83 thighs, and pelvis (Kipp et al. 2011). In addition, a strip of reflective tape was wrapped around the

84 long axis of the barbell at its mid-point. Each weightlifter performed a warm-up with several

85 repetitions and sets at lighter loads, and then performed two repetitions at 85% of their most recent

86 1RM of the clean exercise. The 3-D positions of all markers were recorded with a 6-camera motion

87 capture system (VICON 460, ViconMX, Los Angeles, CA, USA) at 250 Hz. GRF were collected

88 at 1,250 Hz from two force plates (Kistler model 9281A, Kistler Instrument Corp, Amherst, NY,

89 USA) that were built into a wooden 2.4 m x 2.4 m weightlifting platform.

90

91 2.3 Data Processing Procedures

92 The kinematic and kinetic data were filtered at 6 Hz and 25 Hz, respectively. Lower extremity

93 biomechanics were calculated with a rigid-link segment model that included a foot, shank, thigh,

94 and pelvis segment (Kipp et al. 2011). A typical 3-D inverse dynamics procedure was used to

95 calculate the internal NJM at the hip, knee, and ankle joints (Winter, 2005). Sagittal-plane NJM

96 were normalised to each lifter’s body-mass and height (i.e., N·m·kg-1·m-1), and are presented such

97 that hip and knee extension as well as plantarflexion NJM are positive. NJM time-series data from

98 the right leg were time-normalised to 100% of the pull phase, which was defined as period from

99 when the barbell left the platform to when the GRF fell below 10 Newton’s (Figure 1). The

100 horizontal and vertical positions of the barbell were also extracted during that same phase. The

101 direction convention for barbell motion was such that the negative and positive directions indicated

102 barbell motion towards and away from the lifter, respectively. Only data from the 85% 1-RM set

103 were used as part of the NN analysis.

Page 5 of 18
104 Insert Figure 1 about here

105 2.4 Neural Network Analysis

106 The NN developed for this study consisted of a nonlinear autoregressive network with external

107 inputs (NARX: Figure 2), and was developed with the Neural Network Toolbox in MATLAB

108 R2015a (The Mathworks, Inc, Natick, MA, USA). The horizontal and vertical position time-series

109 data as well as the mass of the barbell served as inputs and the three NJM time-series served as

110 outputs; the NN thus had three variables (i.e., nodes) in both its input and output layer. The hidden

111 layer had 10 neurons, which were connected to each input and output node. The weights and biases

112 of the NN were trained with Levenberg-Marquardt back-propagated error correction, and the input

113 and feedback delays were both set to 1:2. A division of 70/15/15 was used for the respective

114 training/validation/testing of the data within the NN.

115 Insert Figure 2 about here

116 A k-fold cross-validation procedure was used to assess the accuracy of the NN. The 7-fold

117 cross-validation involved training the NN with data from six weightlifters (i.e., the training cases),

118 and then testing with data from the one remaining weightlifter (i.e., the test case). The NN

119 performance was evaluated based on the Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE) and the coefficient of

120 determination (r2) between the NN-predicted output data and the actual inverse dynamics

121 calculated data for each of the three NJM of the test case for each fold of the cross-validation

122 procedure. Visual inspection of the NN-predicted output and the percent difference (%Diff)

123 between NN-predicted and inverse dynamics calculated peak NJM data were used to provide a

124 pragmatic interpretation of the NN performance (Liu et al. 2009). The averages and standard

125 deviations from the 7-fold cross-validation procedures were calculated for the RMSE, r2, and

126 %Diff.

Page 6 of 18
127 3. Results

128 The overall RMSE for the training and testing of the NN were 0.0022 ± 0.0008 and 0.26 ± 0.11

129 N·m·kg-1·m-1, respectively. The RMSE for the prediction of individual NJM were 0.148 ± 0.183

130 for the hip, 0.057 ± 0.044 for the knee, and 0.017 ± 0.009 N·m·kg-1·m-1 for the ankle joint (Figure

131 3). The coefficients of determination for the prediction of individual NJM ranged from 0.79 to

132 0.95, and the percent difference between NN-predicted and inverse dynamics calculated peak NJM

133 ranged from 5% to 16% (Table 1).

134 Insert Figure 3 about here

135 Insert Table 1 about here

136

137 4. Discussion

138 The purpose of this study was to develop and train a NN model to predict hip, knee, and ankle

139 NJM from vertical and horizontal motions and mass of a barbell during an Olympic weightlifting

140 exercise. The low training and testing RMSE suggest that the NN effectively modeled the

141 relationship between the mass and kinematics of the barbell and the lower extremity NJM during

142 the clean. The accuracy of the joint-specific NJM predictions from the trained NN model were

143 comparable to other results reported in the literature. For example, Liu et al. (2009) reported RMSE

144 between 0.122 and 0.280 and correlation coefficients (r) between 0.95 and 0.99 in their NN

145 estimation of hip, knee, and ankle NJM during squat jumps and countermovement jumps. Given

146 the similarities between jumping and weightlifting movements (Garhammer and Gregor, 1992),

147 the RMSE and r2 values for our NN-based NJM predictions of thus compare well to findings of

148 Liu et al. (2009). The prediction accuracy of our NN model is also similar to that of Hahn and

149 O’Keefe (2005) who used NN models to predict NJM during gait, their results indicated that

Page 7 of 18
150 demographic and joint kinematic data could predict hip, knee, and ankle NJM during normal

151 walking with r2 values between 0.90 and 0.95.

152 We found that the absolute percent difference in discrete peak NJM between the NN-predicted

153 and actual inverse dynamics calculated data ranged between 5-16%. The NN model often over-

154 predicted the peak NJM data for the hip (e.g., Figure 3c), but under-predicted the NJM for the knee

155 (e.g., Figure 3e). It is somewhat difficult to establish whether these differences are of practical

156 importance because of the paucity of NJM analyses in the weightlifting literature. Baumann et al.

157 (1988) reported NJM for athletes who competed at the 1985 world championships in weightlifting.

158 From their data, one can estimate that the differences in hip NJM between a gold-medal

159 weightlifter and one of the bottom ten weightlifters was approximately 14%. Furthermore, data

160 from a series of world record lifts by a single lifter suggests that the hip NJM increased by 7.6%

161 between lifts at 135 kg and 140 kg, and by another 7.6% between the lifts of 140 kg and 143 kg.

162 While these differences may appear low compared to the present prediction errors, one should note

163 that the pattern of the NJM time-series are sometimes purported to be of greater practical

164 significance than their actual magnitude because temporal aspects also relate to weightlifting

165 performance and technique (Baumann et al., 1988; Enoka, 1988; Garhammer, 1981; Kipp et al.

166 2012b). The percent difference in discrete peak NJM should therefore be interpreted along with

167 the high r2 values (0.79 to 0.90) for each of the NJM.

168 The NN was trained and tested with data from seven college-level weightlifters. Although the

169 performance level of these weightlifters was below that reported in the literature for elite national

170 and international weightlifters (Garhammer, 1980 & 1985), barbell mass was an input to the NN

171 to account for differences in performance level. Further, the participants in the current study

172 exhibited barbell trajectories and NJM time-series that were similar to data from weightlifters who

Page 8 of 18
173 competed at higher levels (Baumann et al., 1988; Garhammer, 1981; Stone et al. 1998). Given the

174 purported importance of the temporal structure and patterning of the NJM time-series, the

175 qualitative similarity in NJM time-series data is encouraging because it may indicate that the

176 prediction accuracy could indeed be fairly robust and that the NN could generalize well to other

177 populations of weightlifters. Nonetheless, it remains to be determined how the NN would perform

178 with input data from other populations, the generalisability of the NN therefore needs to be further

179 investigated.

180 The practical implications of our findings are relevant to sports biomechanists and coaches as

181 they suggest that it may be possible to predict NJM during weightlifting practices or competitions

182 with a NN model and information about the mass and bar path of the barbell. While digital video

183 cameras, and free digitizing equipment (e.g. Kinovea), make it easy to track barbell kinematics the

184 effect of lower technical specifications of these cameras needs to be determined. Another issue

185 concerns the accessibility of NN models for coaches, which could be addressed through the use of

186 MATLAB’s Application Compiler to implement the NN code into Microsoft Excel.

187 This study showed that it is possible to predict NJM with a NN and the motions and mass of

188 the barbell as weightlifters perform the clean exercise. Given that the barbell kinematic data can

189 be easily recorded and processed with low-cost motion analysis solutions (Dæhlin, et al., 2017;

190 Garhammer and Newton, 2013), future work should try to determine whether combining a NN

191 models with such technology can accurately predict NJM during of weightlifting exercises without

192 the need for expensive equipment or obstructive instrumentation.

Page 9 of 18
193 References
194
195 Bartlett, R. 2007. Introduction to sports biomechanics: Analysing human movement patterns.
196 Routledge.
197
198 Bartonietz, K.E. 1996. Biomechanics of the snatch: toward a higher training efficiency. Strength
199 & Conditioning Journal, 18, 24-31.
200
201 Baumann, W., Gross, V., Quade, K., Galbierz, P., Schwirtz, A. 1988. The snatch technique of
202 world class weightlifters at the 1985 world championships. International Journal of Sport
203 Biomechanics, 4, 68-89.
204
205 Dæhlin, T.E., Krosshaug, T., Chiu, L.Z. 2017. Enhancing digital video analysis of bar kinematics
206 in weightlifting: a case study. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 31, 1592-1600.
207
208 Enoka, R.M. 1988. Load-and skill-related changes in segmental contributions to a weightlifting
209 movement. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 20, 178-187.
210
211 Garhammer, J. 1980. Power production by Olympic weightlifters. Medicine and Science in Sports
212 and Exercise, 12, 54-60.
213
214 Garhammer, J. 1981. Biomechanical characteristics of the 1978 world weightlifting
215 champions. Biomechanics VII-B, 300-304.
216
217 Garhammer, J. 1985. Biomechanical profiles of Olympic weightlifters. International Journal of
218 Sport Biomechanics, 1, 122-130.
219
220 Garhammer, J., Gregor, R. 1992. Propulsion forces as a function of intensity for weightlifting and
221 vertical jumping. J of Applied Sport Science Research, 6, 129-34.
222
223 Garhammer, J., Newton, H. 2013. Applied video analysis for coaches: Weightlifting
224 examples. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 8, 581-594.
225
226 Hahn, M.E., O'Keefe, K.B. 2008. A neural network model for estimation of net joint moments
227 during normal gait. Journal of Musculoskeletal Research, 11, 117-126.
228
229 Kipp, K., Harris, C., Sabick, M. B. 2011. Lower extremity biomechanics during weightlifting
230 exercise vary across joint and load. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 25, 1229-
231 1234.
232
233 Kipp, K., Redden, J., Sabick, M., Harris, C. 2012a. Kinematic and kinetic synergies of the lower
234 extremities during the pull in Olympic weightlifting. Journal of applied biomechanics, 28, 271-
235 278.
236

Page 10 of 18
237 Kipp, K., Redden, J., Sabick, M. B., Harris, C. 2012b. Weightlifting performance is related to
238 kinematic and kinetic patterns of the hip and knee joints. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning
239 Research, 26, 1838-1844.
240
241 Liu, Y., Shih, S.M., Tian, S.L., Zhong, Y.J., Li, L. 2009. Lower extremity joint torque predicted
242 by using artificial neural network during vertical jump. Journal of Biomechanics, 42, 906-911.
243
244 Schöllhorn, W.I. 2004. Applications of artificial neural nets in clinical biomechanics. Clinical
245 Biomechanics, 19, 876-898.
246
247 Stone, M.H., O'bryant, H.S., Williams, F.E., Johnson, R.L., & Pierce, K.C. 1998. Analysis of bar
248 paths during the snatch in elite male weightlifters. Strength & Conditioning Journal, 20, 30-38.
249
250 Winter, D.A. 2009. Biomechanics and motor control of human movement. John Wiley & Sons.

Page 11 of 18
Figure Captions

Fig. 1. Depiction of pull-phase time period for the clean, and the biomechanical data that must be

obtained for inverse dynamics procedures i.e., kinematic data of the body (blue dots) as well as

ground reaction forces (grey vector lines). The motion path of the barbell is shown in yellow dotted

lines.

Fig. 2. Neural Network architecture. Note: The time-series figures under the input level (i.e.,

barbell positions) and output level (i.e., hip, knee, and ankle net joint moments) show the ensemble

average (Mean±SD) of training cases (grey lines and error bars) that were used to train one of the

k-fold cross-validation networks, and the single test case (black lines) that was used to test the

performance of the respective neural network.

Fig. 3. Inverse dynamics calculated (solid line) and Neural Network predicted (dotted line) Net

Joint Moment (NJM: N∙m∙kg-1∙m-1) data for the hip (a-c), knee (d-f), and ankle (g-i) joints during

the pull-phase of the clean for three different (one per column) weightlifters. Note: The positive y-

axis direction indicates hip and knee extension as well as plantarflexion NJM.

Page 12 of 18
Fig. 1

Page 13 of 18
Fig. 2

Page 14 of 18
 2.0 2.0 2.0
NJM (N·m·kg-1·m-1) RMSE = 0.013; r2 = 0.91 RMSE = 0.124; r2 = 0.94

NJM (N·m·kg-1·m-1)

NJM (N·m·kg-1·m-1)
1.0 1.0 1.0

0.0 0.0 0.0

RMSE = 0.073; r2 = 0.91

-1.0 -1.0 -1.0

0 25 50 75 100 0 25 50 75 100 0 25 50 75 100
a) Time (% of Pull-Phase) b) Time (% of Pull-Phase) c) Time (% of Pull-Phase)
2.0 2.0 2.0
RMSE = 0.036; r2 = 0.93 RMSE = 0.109; r2 = 0.73 RMSE = 0.036; r2 = 0.69
NJM (N·m·kg-1·m-1)

NJM (N·m·kg-1·m-1)

NJM (N·m·kg-1·m-1)
1.0 1.0 1.0

0.0 0.0 0.0

-1.0 -1.0 -1.0

0 25 50 75 100 0 25 50 75 100 0 25 50 75 100
d) Time (% of Pull-Phase) e) Time (% of Pull-Phase) f) Time (% of Pull-Phase)

2.0 2.0 2.0

RMSE = 0.017; r2 = 0.93 RMSE = 0.006; r2 = 0.99 RMSE = 0.007; r2 = 0.99
NJM (N·m·kg-1·m-1)

NJM (N·m·kg-1·m-1)

NJM (N·m·kg-1·m-1)
1.0 1.0 1.0

0.0 0.0 0.0

-1.0 -1.0 -1.0

0 25 50 75 100 0 25 50 75 100 0 25 50 75 100
g) Time (% of Pull-Phase) h) Time (% of Pull-Phase) i) Time (% of Pull-Phase)

Fig. 3

Page 15 of 18
 Table 1
Mean±SD of the peak Net Joint Moments (NJM [Nm·kg-1·m-1]) as calculated
with inverse dynamics procedures (Calculated) and predicted with the Neural
Network (Predicted), the coefficient of determination (r2) between the two
quantities, and the percent difference (%Diff) between the two quantities.
NJM Calculated Predicted r2 %Diff
Hip 1.37±0.36 1.47±0.26 0.80±0.18 6±15
Knee 0.88±0.13 0.77±0.30 0.79±0.13 -16±21
Ankle 1.14±0.15 1.12±0.14 0.95±0.03 -5±6

Page 16 of 18

View publication stats