The purpose of the present study is to analyze the agreement between different sampling frequencies (SF) to quantify the accelerometer-load in soccer. Eight under-16 male soccer players were registered during an in-season training session. Each player wore four inertial measurement units that registered the accelerometer workload index PlayerLoadRT at different sampling frequencies: (a) 10 Hz, (b) 100 Hz, (c) 500 Hz, and (d) 1000 Hz. Additionally, a down-sampling method was performed: (e) 1000 to 100 Hz and (f) 500 to 100 Hz for comparison purposes. Agreement and correlation analysis were determined using the Pearson correlation coefficient, intraclass correlation, Bland-Altman bias, and t-student of independent samples with Cohen’s d effect size. Very large to nearly perfect correlations were found between all SF (r> 0.704). An almost perfect agreement was found between all SF (ICC>0.864), except regular to substantial agreement between 10 Hz and the rest of the sampling frequencies (ICC = 0.357–0.658). Comparison analysis showed statistical differences between all sampling frequencies (p< 0.01) with the highest differences between 10 Hz and all other sampling frequencies. If trying to compare data collected at different frequencies, researchers should explain their rationale for the chosen sampling frequency to provide greater context for the reader. Accelerometers with greater than 100 Hz frequency should be used to provide more robust data regarding the dynamics in soccer. Based on the goals of the research, a sampling frequency can be selected to register suitable accelerometry-based data.
JaspersABrinkMSProbstSGM, et al. Relationships between training load indicators and training outcomes in professional soccer. Sports Med2017; 47: 533–544.
2.
BowenLGrossASGimpelM, et al. Accumulated workloads and the acute:chronic workload ratio relate to injury risk in elite youth football players. Br J Sports Med2017; 51: 452–459.
3.
OwenALForsythJJWongDP, et al. Heart rate-based training intensity and its impact on injury incidence among elite-level professional soccer players. J Strength Cond Res Natl Strength Cond Assoc2015; 29: 1705–1712.
4.
McLarenSJMacphersonTWCouttsAJ, et al. The relationships between internal and external measures of training load and intensity in team sports: a meta-analysis. Sports Med2018; 48: 641–658.
5.
Rico-GonzálezMLos ArcosANakamuraFY, et al. The use of technology and sampling frequency to measure variables of tactical positioning in team sports: a systematic review. Res Sports Med2020; 28: 279–292.
6.
CumminsCOrrRO’ConnorH, et al. Global Positioning Systems (GPS) and microtechnology sensors in team sports: a systematic review. Sports Med2013; 43: 1025–1042.
7.
HauslerJHalakiMOrrR.Application of global positioning system and microsensor technology in competitive rugby league match-play: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Med2016; 46: 559–588.
8.
Gómez-CarmonaCDPino-OrtegaJSánchez-UreñaB, et al. Accelerometry-based external load indicators in sport: too many options, same practical outcome?Int J Environ Res Public Health2019; 16: 5101.
9.
BuchheitMLacomeMCholleyY, et al. Neuromuscular responses to conditioned soccer sessions assessed via gps-embedded accelerometers: insights into tactical periodization. Int J Sports Physiol Perform2018; 13: 577–583.
10.
Miñano-EspinJCasáisLLago-PeñasC, et al. High speed running and sprinting profiles of elite soccer players. J Hum Kinet2017; 58: 169–176.
11.
Gomez-CarmonaCDBastida-CastilloAGonzález-CustodioA, et al. Using an inertial device (WIMU PRO™) to quantify neuromuscular load in running: reliability, convergent validity and the influence of type of surface and device location. J Strength Cond Res2020; 34: 365–373.
12.
BarrettSMidgleyAWTowlsonC, et al. Within-Match PlayerLoad™ patterns during a simulated soccer match: potential implications for unit positioning and fatigue management. Int J Sports Physiol Perform2016; 11: 135–140.
13.
CasamichanaDCastellanoJCalleja-GonzalezJ, et al. Relationship between indicators of training load in soccer players. J Strength Cond Res2013; 27: 369–374.
14.
BoydLJBallKAugheyRJ.The reliability of MinimaxX accelerometers for measuring physical activity in Australian football. Int J Sports Physiol Perform2011; 6: 311–321.
15.
MaloneJJLovellRVarleyMC, et al. Unpacking the black box: applications and considerations for using GPS devices in sport. Int J Sports Physiol Perform2017; 12: S218–S226.
16.
NyquistH. Certain topics in telegraph transmission theory. Trans Am Inst Electr Eng1928; 47: 617–644.
17.
StevensTGAde RuiterCJvan NielC, et al. Measuring acceleration and deceleration in soccer-specific movements using a Local Position Measurement (LPM) system. Int J Sports Physiol Perform2014; 9: 446–456.
18.
Gómez-CarmonaCDBastida-CastilloAIbáñezSJ, et al. Accelerometry as a method for external workload monitoring in invasion team sports. A systematic review. PLoS One2020; 15: e0236643.
19.
ZhangSMurrayPZillmerR, et al. Activity classification using the GENEA: optimum sampling frequency and number of axes. Med Sci Sports Exerc2012; 44: 2228–2234.
20.
WinterDA. Biomechanics and motor control of human movement. 4th ed.Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2009.
21.
MiguelesJHCadenas-SanchezCEkelundU, et al. Accelerometer data collection and processing criteria to assess physical activity and other outcomes: a systematic review and practical considerations. Sports Med2017; 47: 1821–1845.
22.
ChambersRGabbettTJColeMH, et al. The use of wearable microsensors to quantify sport-specific movements. Sports Med2015; 45: 1065–1081.
23.
WhiteAHillsSPCookeCB, et al. Match-Play and performance test responses of soccer goalkeepers: a review of current literature. Sports Med2018; 48: 2497–2516.
24.
Reche-SotoPCardona-NietoDDiaz-SuarezA, et al. Player load and metabolic power dynamics as load quantifiers in soccer. J Hum Kinet2019; 69: 259–269.
25.
Gómez-CarmonaCDBastida-CastilloAGarcía-RubioJ, et al. Static and dynamic reliability of WIMU PRO™ accelerometers according to anatomical placement. Proc IMechE, Part P: J Sports Engineering Technology2019; 233: 238–248.
26.
EdwardsSWhiteSHumphreysS, et al. Caution using data from triaxial accelerometers housed in player tracking units during running. J Sports Sci2018; 37: 810–818.
27.
KottnerJStreinerDL. The difference between reliability and agreement. J Clin Epidemiol2011; 64: 701–702.
28.
ZakiRBulgibaAIsmailR, et al. Statistical methods used to test for agreement of medical instruments measuring continuous variables in method comparison studies: a systematic review. PLoS One2012; 7: e37908.
29.
BlandJMAltmanDG. Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Methods Med Res1999; 8: 135–160.
30.
CohenJ. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed.Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates, 1988.
31.
KramerMSFeinsteinAR. Clinical biostatistics. LIV. The biostatistics of concordance. Clin Pharmacol Ther1981; 29: 111–123.
32.
HopkinsWGMarshallSWBatterhamAM, et al. Progressive statistics for studies in sports medicine and exercise science. Med Sci Sports Exerc2009; 41: 3–13.
33.
DuarteRAraújoDFernandesO, et al. Capturing complex human behaviors in representative sports contexts with a single camera. Medicina (Kaunas)2010; 46: 408–414.
34.
FrenckenWGPLemminkKAPMDellemanNJ. Soccer-specific accuracy and validity of the local position measurement (LPM) system. J Sci Med Sport2010; 13: 641–645.
35.
LeserRBacaAOgrisG. Local Positioning Systems in (Game) sports. Sensors2011; 11: 9778–9797.
36.
Rico-GonzálezMLos ArcosARojas-ValverdeD, et al. A survey to assess the quality of the data obtained by radio-frequency technologies and microelectromechanical systems to measure external workload and collective behavior variables in team sports. Sensors2020; 20: 2271.
37.
WuLCLaksariKKuoC, et al. Bandwidth and sample rate requirements for wearable head impact sensors. J Biomech2016; 49: 2918–2924.
38.
MackDJBelfantiSSchwarzU. The effect of sampling rate and lowpass filters on saccades – A modeling approach. Behav Res Methods2017; 49: 2146–2162.
