Setting up the Experimental Design

  • Gonçalo DiasEmail author
  • Micael S. Couceiro
Part of the SpringerBriefs in Applied Sciences and Technology book series (BRIEFSAPPLSCIENCES)


The past decades have seen technological advances and new analysis tools that allow comprehensive interpretation of human movement patterns. As movement patterns are being analyzed with improved technology, subtle individualities or signature patterns of movement have been identified. These technological advances open a window of opportunity to further study and augment understanding in several fields, including sport science, that benefit from a multidisciplinary approach (biomechanics, engineering, mathematics, motor control) (Dias et al. On a ball’s trajectory model for putting’s evaluation. Computational intelligence and decision making—trends and applications, from intelligent systems, control and automation: science and engineering bookseries 2013). This chapter may be seen as a guide for setting up the experimental design for research purposes. Several methodological and technological alternatives will be presented and compared. Moreover, a case study provided by the authors and applied to golf putting in the laboratory context will be introduced as an example. Note that the same case study will be used throughout the book. New methods for performance analysis of golf putting have been suggested, focusing on individual kinematic analysis, rather than the traditional pooling of group data, such as in Couceiro et al. (J Motor Behav 45:37–53, 2013) and Dias et al. (On a ball’s trajectory model for putting’s evaluation. Computational intelligence and decision making—trends and applications, from intelligent systems, control and automation: science and engineering bookseries 2013). The purpose was to understand the relevant changes resulting from the interaction between the athlete’s characteristics and the surrounding context by analyzing the motor behavior profiles as measured by the individual kinematic strategies. It is also important to mention that the use of new technologies involves a more profound approach than the traditional linear techniques, which mainly consider product measurements/variables that are a result of the movement (through average, standard deviation or variation coefficient), something that does not allow analysis of the movement itself (Harbourne and Stergiou JNPT Am Phys Ther 89:267–82, 2009).


Golf putting Task Procedures Instrumentation Performance 


  1. Battig WF (1966) Facilitation and interference. In: Bilodeau EA (ed) Acquisition of skill. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Bjork RA (1994) Memory and metamory considerations in the training of human beings. In: Metcalfe J, Shimamura A (eds) Metacognition: knowledge about knowing. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  3. Bjork RA (1999) Assessing our own competence: heuristics and illusions. In: D Gopher, Koriat A (eds) Attention and performance XVII. Cognitive regulation of performance: interaction of theory and application. MA: MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  4. Dias G, Mendes R, Luz M, Couceiro, MS, Figueiredo C (2010) Procedimentos e análise de dados aplicados ao estudo do putting. Boletim da SPEF 35(4):47–58. ISSN 1646-8775Google Scholar
  5. Couceiro MS, Dias G, Martins FML, Luz JM (2012) A fractional calculus approach for the evaluation of the golf lip-out. Signal Image Video 6(3):437–443. doi: 10.1007/s11760-012-0317-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Couceiro MS, Dias G, Mendes R, Araújo D (2013) Accuracy of pattern detection methods in the performance of golf putting. J Motor Behav 45(1):37–53. doi: 10.1080/00222895.2012.740100 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Davids K, Button C, Bennett SJ (2008) Dynamics of skill acquisition—a constraints-led approach. Human Kinetics Publishers, ChampaignGoogle Scholar
  8. Dias G, Mendes R (2010) Efeitos do contínuo de níveis de interferência contextual na aprendizagem do “putt” do golfe. Rev bras cienc esporte 24(4):545–553. doi: 10.1590/S1807-55092010000400011
  9. Dias G, Mendes R, Couceiro MS, Figueiredo C, Luz JMA (2013) “On a Ball’s trajectory model for putting’s evaluation”, computational intelligence and decision making—trends and applications, from intelligent systems, control and automation: science and engineering bookseries. Springer Verlag, LondonGoogle Scholar
  10. Dias G, Couceiro MS, Barreiros J, Clemente FM, Mendes R, Martins FM (2014) Distance and slope constraints: adaptation and variability in golf putting. Mot Control 18(3):221–243. doi: 10.1123/mc.2013-0055 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Endres F, Hess J, Engelhard N, Sturm J, Cremers D, Burgard W (2012) An evaluation of the RGB-D SLAM system. In: 2012 IEEE International Conference on robotics and automation (ICRA) pp 1691–1696Google Scholar
  12. Fernández-Baena A, Susín A, Lligadas X (2012) Biomechanical validation of upper-body and lower-body joint movements of kinect motion capture data for rehabilitation treatments. In: 4th International Conference on intelligent networking and collaborative systems (INCoS) pp 656–661Google Scholar
  13. Garafalo P (2010) Development of motion analysis protocols based on inertial sensors, Ph.D. thesis on Bioengineering, University of BolognaGoogle Scholar
  14. Guadagnoli MA, Lee TD (2004) Challenge point: a framework for conceptualizing the effects of various practice conditions in motor learning. J Motor Behav 36(2):212–224. doi: 10.3200/JMBR.36.2.212-224
  15. Harbourne RT, Stergiou N (2009) Movement variability and the use of nonlinear tools: principles to guide physical therapist practice. JNPT Am Phys Ther 89(3):267–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Magill RA (2011) Motor learning and control: concepts and applications. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. Neal RJ, Wilson BD (1985) 3D kinematics and kinetics of the golf putting. Int J Biomech 1(3):221–232. ISSN (online): 1543-2688Google Scholar
  18. Neal RJ, Lumsden R, Holland M, Mason B (2007) Body segment sequencing and timing in golf. In: Jenkings S (ed) Annual review of golf coaching 2007. Multi-Science Publication, BrentwoodGoogle Scholar
  19. Porter JM, Magill RA (2005) Practicing along the contextual interference continuum increases performance of a golf putting task. J Sport Exerc Psy 27:S-124. ISSN. 0895-2779Google Scholar
  20. Shea JB, Morgan RL (1979) Contextual interference effects on the acquisition, retention and transfer of motor skill. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 5(2):178–187. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.5.2.179
  21. Shotton J, Sharp T, Kipman A, Fitzgibbon A, Finocchio M, Blake A, Moore R (2013) Real-time human pose recognition in parts from single depth images. Commun ACM 56(1):116–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Tani G (2005) Comportamento motor: aprendizagem e desenvolvimento. São Paulo, GuanabaraGoogle Scholar
  23. Ye M, Zhang Q, Wang L, Zhu J, Yang R, Gall J (2013) A survey on human motion analysis from depth data. In: time-of-flight and depth imaging. sensors, algorithms, and applications Springer, Berlin Heidelberg pp. 149–187Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Sport Sciences and Physical EducationUniversity of CoimbraCoimbraPortugal
  2. 2.Ingeniarius, LdaMealhadaPortugal

Personalised recommendations