인문학
사회과학
자연과학
공학
의약학
농수해양학
예술체육학
복합학
DBpia AI
AI 에이전트
AI 아이디어
AI 리더
AI 뷰어
Citeasy
크롬 서지관리 다운로드
개인구독
소속 기관이 없으신 경우, 개인 정기구독을 하시면 저렴하게
논문을 무제한 열람 이용할 수 있어요.
지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
논문 기본 정보
- 저자정보
피인용 0
초록·키워드
PURPOSE : This study aimed to compare the performance and efficiency of sequence models — LSTM and GRU — using both 2D and 3D motion data for classifying archery shooting techniques. The goal was to evaluate how data dimensionality and model architecture influence classification accuracy, computational cost, and practical applicability in sports motion analysis.
METHODS : Four models (2D LSTM, 2D GRU, 3D LSTM, and 3D GRU) were trained and tested on motion capture data collected from elite archers. The dataset was split into training and testing sets at a 7:3 ratio, with 6,304 samples for 2D data and 2,317 samples for 3D data. Performance was assessed using accuracy, loss, F1-score, and AUC, while training time was recorded to evaluate computational efficiency. Confusion matrices were analyzed to identify class-level strengths and weaknesses.
RESULTS : The GRU-based models consistently outperformed LSTM-based models across both 2D and 3D datasets. The 3D GRU achieved the highest accuracy (89%) and F1-score, benefiting from depth and spatial information, while the 2D GRU reached 82% accuracy with the shortest training time (20 minutes). The performance gain from 2D to 3D was greater for GRU models (+7 percentage points) than for LSTM models (+3 percentage points). Confusion matrix analysis revealed that 3D models, particularly the 3D GRU, exhibited stronger class separation, though 2D models maintained competitive performance with lower computational demands.
CONCLUSIONS : While 3D GRU offers the highest classification accuracy, its longer training time and higher computational cost may limit its suitability for real-time or resource-constrained applications. The 2D GRU model provides a practical balance between performance and efficiency, making it well-suited for rapid analysis and frequent model updates. The choice between 2D and 3D approaches should be guided by the intended application, available resources, and the required balance between accuracy and efficiency.
METHODS : Four models (2D LSTM, 2D GRU, 3D LSTM, and 3D GRU) were trained and tested on motion capture data collected from elite archers. The dataset was split into training and testing sets at a 7:3 ratio, with 6,304 samples for 2D data and 2,317 samples for 3D data. Performance was assessed using accuracy, loss, F1-score, and AUC, while training time was recorded to evaluate computational efficiency. Confusion matrices were analyzed to identify class-level strengths and weaknesses.
RESULTS : The GRU-based models consistently outperformed LSTM-based models across both 2D and 3D datasets. The 3D GRU achieved the highest accuracy (89%) and F1-score, benefiting from depth and spatial information, while the 2D GRU reached 82% accuracy with the shortest training time (20 minutes). The performance gain from 2D to 3D was greater for GRU models (+7 percentage points) than for LSTM models (+3 percentage points). Confusion matrix analysis revealed that 3D models, particularly the 3D GRU, exhibited stronger class separation, though 2D models maintained competitive performance with lower computational demands.
CONCLUSIONS : While 3D GRU offers the highest classification accuracy, its longer training time and higher computational cost may limit its suitability for real-time or resource-constrained applications. The 2D GRU model provides a practical balance between performance and efficiency, making it well-suited for rapid analysis and frequent model updates. The choice between 2D and 3D approaches should be guided by the intended application, available resources, and the required balance between accuracy and efficiency.
본문·목차
인공지능 문자 인식 모델을 통해 추출된 텍스트로, 일부 오타나 오류가 포함될 수 있으나 지속적으로 개선 중입니다.
오류를 발견하셨다면 해당 부분을 드래그한 후 ' 를 통해 신고해주세요.
오류를 발견하셨다면 해당 부분을 드래그한 후 ' 를 통해 신고해주세요.
최근 본 자료 전체보기
UCI(KEPA) : I410-151-26-02-095601455
