ArticleFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2024
Unveiling individuality in the early phase of motor learning: a machine learning approach for analysing weightlifting technique in novices.
Article in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Machine Learning-Based Prediction of Six-Minute Walk Distance in Children with Obesity.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Acute effects of motor learning models on technical efficiency in strength-coordination exercises: a comparative analysis of Olympic snatch biomechanics in beginners.Biology of sport · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Despite the growing body of evidence highlighting the individuality in movement techniques, predominant models of motor learning, particularly during the acquisition phase, continue to emphasise generalised, person-independent approaches. Biomechanical studies, coupled with machine learning approaches, have demonstrated the uniqueness of movement techniques exhibited by individuals. However, this evidence predominantly pertains to already stabilised movement techniques, particularly evident in cyclic daily activities such as walking, running, or cycling, as well as in expert-level sports movements. This study aims to evaluate the hypothesis of individuality in whole-body movements necessitating intricate coordination and strength among novice participants at the very beginning of an acquisition phase. Methods: In a within-subject design, sixteen highly active male participants (mean age: 23.1 ± 2.1 years), all absolute novices in the learning task (i.e., power snatch of Olympic weightlifting), participated in randomised snatch learning bouts. These bouts comprised 36 trials across various motor learning models: differential learning contextual interference (serial, sCIL; and blocked, bCIL), and repetitive learning. Kinematic and kinetic data were collected from three standardised snatch trials performed following each motor learning model bout. The time-continuous data were input to a linear Support Vector Machine (SVM). We conducted analyses on two classification tasks: participant and motor learning model. Results: The Support Vector Machine classification revealed a notably superior participant classification compared to the motor learning model classification, with an averaged prediction accuracy of 78% (in average ≈35 out of 45 test trials across the folds) Discussion: Methodically, the crucial role of selecting appropriate data pre-processing methods and identifying the optimal combinations of SVM data inputs is discussed in the context of future research. Our findings provide initial support for a dominance of individuality over motor learning models in movement techniques during the early phase of acquisition in Olympic weightlifting power snatch.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.