Fig 1.
Schematic representation of the 4-camera setup used during data collection.
The camera positions are shown relative to the full competition arena (shaded area), with the blue zone indicating the specific location of the pole vault mat and planting box. Camera placement was constrained by the logistical and spatial limitations of the live competition environment.
Table 1.
Test- retest reliability of manual digitising.
Table 2.
Distinct events selected to analyse the performance of the athletes.
Table 3.
Biomechanical variables selected to describe the performance of the athletes.
Table 4.
Mean ± SD for biomechanical variables from Glasgow WIC 2024, using both analysis methods.
Fig 2.
Heatmap showing absolute differences between the markerless (ML) method and the marker-based reference (REF) method for each measured variable.
The colour scale represents both the magnitude and direction of the difference, with warmer tones indicating instances where ML reports higher (overestimating) values than REF, and cooler tones indicating the opposite (underestimating). Values represent the mean difference for each variable across participants.
Fig 3.
CM runaway velocity waveforms (from 3rd last step touchdown to the take-off instant) for the whole group (n = 8).
Black lines represent the REF method and red lines represent the ML method, whilst solid lines represent group mean data and dashed lines athlete individual data. CMD values above each subplot show waveform similarity.
Fig 4.
Joint angle waveforms (from 3rd last step touchdown to the take-off instant) for the whole group (n = 8).
Black lines represent the REF method and red lines represent the ML method, whilst solid lines represent group mean data and dashed lines group SD data. CMD values above each subplot show waveform similarity.
Table 5.
Agreement statistics for discrete biomechanical variables between REF and ML methods (n = 8).