Comparative Analysis of Markerless Motion Capture Systems for Measuring Human Kinematics

IF 4.3 2区 综合性期刊 Q1 ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC IEEE Sensors Journal Pub Date : 2024-07-26 DOI:10.1109/JSEN.2024.3431873
Luca Ceriola;Juri Taborri;Marco Donati;Stefano Rossi;Fabrizio Patanè;Ilaria Mileti
{"title":"Comparative Analysis of Markerless Motion Capture Systems for Measuring Human Kinematics","authors":"Luca Ceriola;Juri Taborri;Marco Donati;Stefano Rossi;Fabrizio Patanè;Ilaria Mileti","doi":"10.1109/JSEN.2024.3431873","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"To date, there are several measurement methods for evaluating human kinematics based on inertial sensors or vision systems. However, a comprehensive comparison has not been undertaken to determine which of these systems offers the most appropriate accuracy for clinical or sports evaluations. This study conducted a comparative analysis of different motion measurement systems: optoelectronic system (OS), inertial measurement units (IMUs), and vision-based methods, including deep neural network (DNN) and non-DNN approaches. Ten healthy subjects were involved, performing walking (W.) and running (R.) tests at various speeds (3.5, 5.0, and 7.0 km/h). The measurement of human kinematics was conducted by taking video images via two RGB cameras, together with an IMU-based system and an OS as the gold standard. Comparative analysis was conducted on a set of measurement methods, including IMU, a method based on blob analysis (BA), and DNN algorithms: Alphapose (AP), TC former (TC), RTMPose (RTM), and MediaPipe (MP). Data analysis involved triangulation and measurement of lower limb joint angles. Results showed that vision systems do not allow ankle joint measurement, and IMUs outperformed other methods in terms of RMSE and absolute error of range of motion (\n<inline-formula> <tex-math>$\\varepsilon _{\\text {ROM}}\\text {)}$ </tex-math></inline-formula>\n. RTM and MP exhibited results similar to IMUs, especially for the hip and knee joints, with the minimum absolute error reporting values of (\n<inline-formula> <tex-math>$3.1^{\\circ }~\\pm ~1.8^{\\circ }\\text {)}$ </tex-math></inline-formula>\n and (\n<inline-formula> <tex-math>$3.5^{\\circ }~\\pm ~1.9^{\\circ }\\text {)}$ </tex-math></inline-formula>\n for the hip joint and (\n<inline-formula> <tex-math>$4.0^{\\circ }~\\pm ~3.7^{\\circ }\\text {)}$ </tex-math></inline-formula>\n and (\n<inline-formula> <tex-math>$4.8^{\\circ }~\\pm ~4.3^{\\circ }\\text {)}$ </tex-math></inline-formula>\n for the knee joint, respectively.","PeriodicalId":447,"journal":{"name":"IEEE Sensors Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"IEEE Sensors Journal","FirstCategoryId":"103","ListUrlMain":"https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10612782/","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

To date, there are several measurement methods for evaluating human kinematics based on inertial sensors or vision systems. However, a comprehensive comparison has not been undertaken to determine which of these systems offers the most appropriate accuracy for clinical or sports evaluations. This study conducted a comparative analysis of different motion measurement systems: optoelectronic system (OS), inertial measurement units (IMUs), and vision-based methods, including deep neural network (DNN) and non-DNN approaches. Ten healthy subjects were involved, performing walking (W.) and running (R.) tests at various speeds (3.5, 5.0, and 7.0 km/h). The measurement of human kinematics was conducted by taking video images via two RGB cameras, together with an IMU-based system and an OS as the gold standard. Comparative analysis was conducted on a set of measurement methods, including IMU, a method based on blob analysis (BA), and DNN algorithms: Alphapose (AP), TC former (TC), RTMPose (RTM), and MediaPipe (MP). Data analysis involved triangulation and measurement of lower limb joint angles. Results showed that vision systems do not allow ankle joint measurement, and IMUs outperformed other methods in terms of RMSE and absolute error of range of motion ( $\varepsilon _{\text {ROM}}\text {)}$ . RTM and MP exhibited results similar to IMUs, especially for the hip and knee joints, with the minimum absolute error reporting values of ( $3.1^{\circ }~\pm ~1.8^{\circ }\text {)}$ and ( $3.5^{\circ }~\pm ~1.9^{\circ }\text {)}$ for the hip joint and ( $4.0^{\circ }~\pm ~3.7^{\circ }\text {)}$ and ( $4.8^{\circ }~\pm ~4.3^{\circ }\text {)}$ for the knee joint, respectively.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
测量人体运动学的无标记运动捕捉系统比较分析
迄今为止,基于惯性传感器或视觉系统的人体运动学评估测量方法有多种。然而,还没有进行过全面的比较,以确定这些系统中哪种系统能为临床或运动评估提供最合适的精度。本研究对不同的运动测量系统进行了比较分析:光电系统(OS)、惯性测量单元(IMU)和基于视觉的方法,包括深度神经网络(DNN)和非DNN方法。十名健康受试者参与了以不同速度(3.5、5.0 和 7.0 公里/小时)进行的步行(W. )和跑步(R. )测试。人体运动学测量是通过两台 RGB 摄像机拍摄视频图像,再配合基于 IMU 的系统和作为黄金标准的操作系统进行的。对一系列测量方法进行了比较分析,包括 IMU、基于 Blob 分析(BA)的方法和 DNN 算法:Alphapose (AP)、TC former (TC)、RTMPose (RTM) 和 MediaPipe (MP)。数据分析包括三角测量和下肢关节角度测量。结果表明,视觉系统无法进行踝关节测量,而 IMU 在 RMSE 和运动范围绝对误差($\varepsilon _{\text {ROM}}\text {)}$ 方面优于其他方法。RTM 和 MP 显示出与 IMU 相似的结果,特别是在髋关节和膝关节方面,最小绝对误差报告值分别为 ( $3.1^{\circ }~\pm ~1.8^{\circ }\text {)}$ 和 ( $3.5^{\circ }~\pm ~1.8^{\circ }\text {)}$ 。髋关节为 ( $4.0^{\circ }~pm ~3.7^{\circ }text{)}$,膝关节为 ( $4.8^{\circ }~pm ~4.3^{\circ }text{)}$。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
IEEE Sensors Journal
IEEE Sensors Journal 工程技术-工程:电子与电气
CiteScore
7.70
自引率
14.00%
发文量
2058
审稿时长
5.2 months
期刊介绍: The fields of interest of the IEEE Sensors Journal are the theory, design , fabrication, manufacturing and applications of devices for sensing and transducing physical, chemical and biological phenomena, with emphasis on the electronics and physics aspect of sensors and integrated sensors-actuators. IEEE Sensors Journal deals with the following: -Sensor Phenomenology, Modelling, and Evaluation -Sensor Materials, Processing, and Fabrication -Chemical and Gas Sensors -Microfluidics and Biosensors -Optical Sensors -Physical Sensors: Temperature, Mechanical, Magnetic, and others -Acoustic and Ultrasonic Sensors -Sensor Packaging -Sensor Networks -Sensor Applications -Sensor Systems: Signals, Processing, and Interfaces -Actuators and Sensor Power Systems -Sensor Signal Processing for high precision and stability (amplification, filtering, linearization, modulation/demodulation) and under harsh conditions (EMC, radiation, humidity, temperature); energy consumption/harvesting -Sensor Data Processing (soft computing with sensor data, e.g., pattern recognition, machine learning, evolutionary computation; sensor data fusion, processing of wave e.g., electromagnetic and acoustic; and non-wave, e.g., chemical, gravity, particle, thermal, radiative and non-radiative sensor data, detection, estimation and classification based on sensor data) -Sensors in Industrial Practice
期刊最新文献
Table of Contents IEEE Sensors Journal Publication Information Front Cover IEEE Sensors Council IEEE Sensors Journal Publication Information
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1