shown in Figures 6 and 7, A has many outliers and a
large variation in values. The standard deviation
values in Table 5 are also significantly lower for B for
the transfer entropy at the starting point. On the other
hand, a decreasing trend was observed for B for the
endpoint transfer entropy, although it was not
significant. In other words, the results are in
accordance with the hypothesis that B has less
variation in the evaluation using the transfer entropy.
To evaluate the improvement point (2), a t-test
(Welch's t-test) was performed for each site to
compare the distribution of the transfer entropy of the
starting point of each site, as shown in Figure 6. The
significance level was set at 0.05. The results showed
that the mean value of B, which is the starting point,
decreased in the left and right hip, knee, and ankle,
which are the lower body regions, and that there was
a significant decrease, especially in the right_hip,
left_hip, and right_ankle. This result is in accordance
with the hypothesis that the lower body's extra
movement decreases due to the awareness of lower
body stability and that the transfer entropy as the
starting point decreases. In addition, there was also a
significant decrease in the starting point of transfer
entropy at the nose, which is the head, indicating that
not only the lower half of the body but also the upper
half of the body showed a decrease in extra
movement.
* p<0.05 (Welch’s t-test)
Figure 8: Mean of transfer entropy from left_elbow to each
joint.
4.2 Improvement Points (3)
To evaluate the improvement point (3), we compared
the transfer entropy for each site starting from
left_elbow as shown in Figure 8. The results showed
that the transfer entropy increased significantly in B
for the left_wrist, right_wrist, and right_elbow, which
are related to the improvement point (3). As a result,
less than 5 out of 10 swings were calculated correctly,
which was insufficient for statistical evaluation. In
addition, there was a significant increase in transfer
entropy for the left_knee and a significant decrease
for the right_ankle, which were not included in the
hypothesis for improvement point (3). Although these
results were not included in the players' awareness,
improvement points (2) and (3) resulted in increased
rotation of the upper body and knee regions.
5 DISCUSSION
The validity of the results of this report was examined
based on interviews with the players and teams
included in this study. In the motion network analysis
of form A→B, which the players consciously aimed
to improve, reasonable results close to the hypothesis
were obtained for improvement points (1), (2), and
(3). For improvement point (1), outliers were reduced
at B in the transfer entropy of the start and end points,
and the variability was reduced. On the other hand,
the significant decrease only at the starting point may
be because the end point is less stable than the starting
point, which is a characteristic of the subject athletes.
In the improvement point (2), a significant decrease
was observed, especially in the hip near the waist,
which may be because the knee has large movement
and is prone to recognition errors. Further verification
of the difference in awareness of the knees and hips
in the form is needed. In the improvement point (3),
the linkage between the left_elbow and other wrists
and elbows changed as hypothesized. However, the
skeletal structure of the right hemisphere, which is
hidden during the swing, was difficult to recognize
from the photographer's side, and this did not lead to
sufficient verification. In this respect, improvements
are needed, such as in the shooting method and in the
use of skeletal recognition libraries that are relatively
accurate even for the hidden parts.
The usefulness of this technology was also
examined in the same way. We presented the linkage
of each part visualized in the motion network analysis
to the players and obtained an evaluation that it was
intuitively easy to understand. This is useful for
confirming the points that players were conscious of
in practice, including the validity of the hypothesis.
In addition, the metadata collected simultaneously
was also evaluated as having the necessary
information for form evaluation based on interviews