The aiming point is the most crucial criterion for a successful shot in all shooting events. This study investigated the motion-capture (Mocap) based aiming point assessment method in three steps: the static fluctuations of the markers in four dimensions were observed; the aiming point results of the Mocap-based method were compared with laser trace on the target in static and dynamic conditions; the effects of marker dimensions on the aiming point trajectories were examined. A wooden lath, with two sets of reflective markers in four dimensions (12-18 mm) and a laser, was fixed on a tripod and aimed at the center of the target. The lath was left stationary and then moved twenty times as in shooting. While a camera followed the laser trace on the target, the Mocap system followed the markers, and aiming point data were calculated. Compared to larger markers, significantly smaller errors in static marker fluctuations were found for the 12 mm marker (p < 0.008). Aiming point trajectory length in static conditions showed significant differences between marker pairs and laser. No significant differences between the laser and the marker pairs of 12, 14, and 16 mm were noticed in dynamic conditions. The Bland-Altman analysis showed that the 12 mm marker pair had the smallest bias and a strong agreement with the laser-based method.
OlssonELaaksonenMS. Key technical components for air pistol shooting performance. Int. J. Perform. Anal. Sport2021; 21(3): 348–360.
2.
LohSKLimJZPanJW, et al.Air pistol shooting: upper limb muscle activation between training and simulated competition. Sports Biomech2021: 1–12.
3.
MonDZakynthinakiMSCordenteCA, et al.Finger flexor force influences performance in senior male air pistol Olympic shooting. PloS One2015; 10(6): e0129862.
4.
BallKBestRWrigleyTV. Body sway, aim point fluctuation and performance in rifle shooters: inter-and intra-individual analysis. J. Sports Sci2003; 21(7): 559–566.
5.
PellegriniBSchenaF. Characterization of arm-gun movement during air pistol aiming phase. J. Sports Med. Phys. Fitness2005; 45(4): 467.
6.
MonDZakynthinakiMCordenteC, et al.Body sway and performance at competition in male pistol and rifle Olympic shooters. Biomed. Hum. Kinet2014; 6(1): 56–62.
7.
ZatsiorskyVMAktovAV. Biomechanics of highly precise movements: the aiming process in air rifle shooting. J. Biomech1990; 23: 35–41.
8.
SundaramVSundarVMiddletonK. Technical determinants of air rifle and pistol shooting performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int. J. Sports Sci. Coach2024: 17479541241245356.
9.
LangDWangFWangNYangT. Key technical factors for elite 50 m rifle 3 positions shooting performance. Sports Biomech2024: 1–11.
10.
MonDZakynthinakiMSCordenteCA, et al.Validation of a dumbbell body sway test in Olympic air pistol shooting. PloS One2014; 9(4): e96106.
11.
ChandrapalMSenanayakeASuwargandaE. Laser aiming monitoring system for archery. In: 2009 IEEE/ASME Int. Conf. Adv Intell. Mechatron. 14-17 July 2009. 2009, pp.1154–1159.
12.
DinWRambelyA. A shooter’s posture in handling a rifle while aiming at a target in standing position. In: ISBS-Conf. Proc. Arch. 02-06 July 2012. 2012, pp.339–346.
13.
DadswellCEPaytonCHolmesPBurdenA. Biomechanical analysis of the change in pistol shooting format in modern pentathlon. J. Sports Sci2013; 31(12): 1294–1301.
14.
DoanT. Effect of stance position on the hold stability of precision pistol shooters. 2014.
15.
AaltoHPyykköIIlmarinenR, et al.Postural stability in shooters. Orl1990; 52(4): 232–238. 24.
16.
BallKABestRJWrigleyTV. Inter-and intra-individual analysis in elite sport: Pistol shooting. J. Appl. Biomech2003; 19(1): 28–38.
17.
Edelmann-NusserJHellerMHofmannMGanterN. On-target trajectories and the final pull in archery. Eur. J. Sport Sci2006; 6(4): 213–222.
18.
ZanevskyyIKorostylovaYMykhaylovV. Aiming point trajectory as an assessment parameter of shooting performance. Hum. Mov2012; 13(3): 211–217.
19.
ZanevskyyIKorostylovaYMykhaylovV. Specificity of shooting training with the optoelectronic target. Acta Bioeng. Biomech2009; 11(4): 63–70.
20.
SattleckerGBucheckerMRamplJ, et al.Biomechanical aspects in biathlon shooting. Sci. Nord. Ski. II Univ. Jyväskylä, Finland2013: 33–40.
21.
Mon-LópezDTejero-GonzálezCM. Validity and reliability of the TargetScan ISSF Pistol & Rifle application for measuring shooting performance. Scand. J. Med. Sci. Sports2019; 29(11): 1707–1712.
22.
KoJHHanDWNewellKM. Skill level and the free moment during a pistol aiming task. Sports Biomech2021: 1–10.
23.
GianikellisKDuraJV. A procedure for determining two postural instability factors that influence on the performance in rifle-shooting. In: ISBS Conf. Proc. Arch. 1999.
24.
LiebermannDGKatzLHughesMD, et al.Advances in the application of information technology to sport performance. J. Sports Sci2002; 20(10): 755–769.
25.
EraPKonttinenNMehtoP, et al.Postural stability and skilled performance—a study on top-level and naive rifle shooters. J. Biomech1996; 29(3): 301–306.
26.
KashubaVAGamaliyVVHabinetzTA. Biomechanical means of the optimization of posture at the shooting with the pistol. In: ISBS Conf. Proc. Arch. 1996.
27.
HawkinsRN. Effects of stance angle on postural stability and performance with national-standard air pistol competitors. Eur. J. Sport Sci2013; 13(5): 483–489.
28.
HellerMBacaAKornfeindPBaronR. Analysis of methods for assessing the aiming process in biathlon shooting. In: ISBS Conf. Proc. Arch. 2006.
29.
GanterNMatyschiokKCPartieM, et al.Comparing three methods for measuring the movement of the bow in the aiming phase of Olympic archery. Procedia Eng2010; 2(2): 3089–3094.
30.
MononenKViitasaloJTEraPKonttinenN. Optoelectronic measures in the analysis of running target shooting. Scandinavian J. Med. Sci. Sports2003; 13(3): 200–207.
31.
ZanevskyyIKorostylovaYMykhaylovV. Shot moment in optoelectronic training in the air-pistol shooting. Int. J. Sports Sci. Eng2010; 4(2): 67–78.
32.
BaleJHWilkinsonM. Validity and reliability of an opto-electric training system in elite and national level ISSF air rifle shooters. Sports Eng2023; 26(1): 27.
33.
DadswellCE. The kinematic factors associated with elite level pistol shooting performance. PhD Thesis, University of Manchester Metropolitan, UK, 2016.
34.
FurnéeEH. Opto-electronic movement measurement systems: Aspects of data acquisition, signal processing and performance. In: BoenickUNäderM (eds) Int. Symp. Berlin: Mecke, 1991, pp.112–129.
35.
ChenLArmstrongCWRaftopoulosDD. An investigation on the accuracy of three-dimensional space reconstruction using the direct linear transformation technique. J. Biomech1994; 27(4): 493–500.
36.
LeardiniAChiariLDella CroceUCappozzoA. Human movement analysis using stereophotogrammetry: Part 3. Soft tissue artifact assessment and compensation. Gait & Posture2005; 21(2): 212–225.
37.
WindolfMGötzenNMorlockM. Systematic accuracy and precision analysis of video motion capturing systems exemplified on the Vicon-460 system. J. Biomech2008; 41(12): 2776–2780.
38.
Diaz NovoCAlharbiSFoxM, et al.The impact of technical parameters such as video sensor technology, system configuration, marker size and speed on the accuracy of motion analysis systems. Ingeniería Mecánica, Tecnología Desarrollo2014; 5(1): 265–271.
39.
EharaYFujimotoHMiyazakiS, et al.Comparison of the performance of 3D camera systems. Gait & Posture1995; 3(3): 166–169.
40.
CroceUDCappozzoA. A spot check for estimating stereophotogrammetric errors. Med. Biol. Eng. Comput2000; 38(3): 260–266.
41.
HoldenJPSelbieWSStanhopeSJ. A proposed test to support the clinical movement analysis laboratory accreditation process. Gait & Posture2003; 17(3): 205–213.
42.
PiazzaSJChouLSDennistonNL, et al.A proposed standard for assessing the marker-location accuracy of video-based motion analysis systems. In: Gait Clin. Mov. Anal. Soc., Springfield, MA. 2007.
43.
Gorton IIIGEHebertDAGannottiME. Assessment of the kinematic variability among 12 motion analysis laboratories. Gait & Posture2009; 29(3): 398–402.
