Validation of upper extremity kinematics using Markerless motion capture

Robyn M. Hansen, Sara L. Arena, Robin M. Queen
{"title":"Validation of upper extremity kinematics using Markerless motion capture","authors":"Robyn M. Hansen,&nbsp;Sara L. Arena,&nbsp;Robin M. Queen","doi":"10.1016/j.bea.2024.100128","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Movement research has typically been performed using three-dimensional (3D) marker-based motion capture, which is considered the “gold-standard” for biomechanical assessment. However, limitations exist due to the lack of portability, extensive preparation for data collection, marker placement training, error due to marker movement, and possible skin irritation due to marker adhesives. There is inherent error due to motion artifact stemming from skin movement and differences in marker placement between testers. Markerless motion capture systems are emerging as a new method of kinematic assessment. These methods require little preparation and there is no need to alter participant clothing. Markerless motion capture has also been validated for the lower extremity in healthy older adults during gait. However, it has not been validated for other populations or for the assessment of upper extremity (UE) motion. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine differences in calculated UE kinematics between marker-based and a markerless motion capture system. Participants attended two data collection sessions. Marker-based and markerless motion capture data was collected simultaneously while participants completed the Box and Blocks test (BBT). Kinematic and spatiotemporal data from both systems was exported using identical time series to ensure the same conditions for comparisons. Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICCs) were calculated to determine between session reliability for both systems on range of motion and peak joint angular data to ensure movement variability was not affecting measurement consistency. ICCs and Bland Altman statistics were also calculated between the systems. Root mean square deviation (RMSD) values were determined between demeaned UE joint angles for the two systems to examine movement pattern differences. The resulting between-session ICCs for each system showed that the markerless system shared similar reliability during this task as the marker-based system, further supporting the effect of variability on between-session reliability. Between-system ICCs resulted in good (0.7&lt;ICC&lt;0.9) to excellent (ICC&gt;0.9) agreement. Bland Altman results confirmed the existence of measurement bias between the systems. RMSD values for all UE joint angles were found to be less than 6°. Overall, the results from this study support the use of markerless motion capture in clinical settings to examine upper extremity biomechanics in children.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":72384,"journal":{"name":"Biomedical engineering advances","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667099224000173/pdfft?md5=84d5e0cc6b0b70cec79906a42f262a8e&pid=1-s2.0-S2667099224000173-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Biomedical engineering advances","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667099224000173","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Movement research has typically been performed using three-dimensional (3D) marker-based motion capture, which is considered the “gold-standard” for biomechanical assessment. However, limitations exist due to the lack of portability, extensive preparation for data collection, marker placement training, error due to marker movement, and possible skin irritation due to marker adhesives. There is inherent error due to motion artifact stemming from skin movement and differences in marker placement between testers. Markerless motion capture systems are emerging as a new method of kinematic assessment. These methods require little preparation and there is no need to alter participant clothing. Markerless motion capture has also been validated for the lower extremity in healthy older adults during gait. However, it has not been validated for other populations or for the assessment of upper extremity (UE) motion. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine differences in calculated UE kinematics between marker-based and a markerless motion capture system. Participants attended two data collection sessions. Marker-based and markerless motion capture data was collected simultaneously while participants completed the Box and Blocks test (BBT). Kinematic and spatiotemporal data from both systems was exported using identical time series to ensure the same conditions for comparisons. Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICCs) were calculated to determine between session reliability for both systems on range of motion and peak joint angular data to ensure movement variability was not affecting measurement consistency. ICCs and Bland Altman statistics were also calculated between the systems. Root mean square deviation (RMSD) values were determined between demeaned UE joint angles for the two systems to examine movement pattern differences. The resulting between-session ICCs for each system showed that the markerless system shared similar reliability during this task as the marker-based system, further supporting the effect of variability on between-session reliability. Between-system ICCs resulted in good (0.7<ICC<0.9) to excellent (ICC>0.9) agreement. Bland Altman results confirmed the existence of measurement bias between the systems. RMSD values for all UE joint angles were found to be less than 6°. Overall, the results from this study support the use of markerless motion capture in clinical settings to examine upper extremity biomechanics in children.

利用无标记运动捕捉验证上肢运动学
运动研究通常使用基于三维(3D)标记的运动捕捉来进行,这被认为是生物力学评估的 "黄金标准"。然而,由于缺乏便携性、数据采集前的大量准备工作、标记放置训练、标记移动造成的误差以及标记粘合剂可能对皮肤造成的刺激等原因,这种方法存在局限性。由于皮肤运动造成的运动伪影和测试者之间标记位置的差异,会产生固有误差。无标记运动捕捉系统正在成为一种新的运动学评估方法。这些方法几乎不需要准备工作,也不需要改变参与者的服装。无标记运动捕捉也已在健康老年人的下肢步态中得到验证。然而,该方法尚未在其他人群或上肢(UE)运动评估中得到验证。因此,本研究的目的是考察基于标记和无标记运动捕捉系统计算出的上肢运动学数据之间的差异。参与者参加了两个数据采集环节。基于标记和无标记的运动捕捉数据是在受试者完成 "方块测试"(BBT)时同时采集的。两个系统的运动学和时空数据均使用相同的时间序列导出,以确保在相同条件下进行比较。通过计算类内相关系数(ICC)来确定两套系统在运动范围和关节角度峰值数据上的疗程间可靠性,以确保运动变异性不会影响测量的一致性。还计算了两个系统之间的 ICC 和 Bland Altman 统计量。两个系统的去均方根偏差 (RMSD) 值被确定在去均方根 UE 关节角度之间,以检查运动模式的差异。结果显示,无标记系统与有标记系统在这项任务中的可靠性相似,这进一步证明了变异性对不同系统间可靠性的影响。系统间 ICC 的一致性从良好(0.7<ICC<0.9)到优秀(ICC>0.9)不等。Bland Altman 结果证实了系统间存在测量偏差。所有 UE 关节角度的 RMSD 值均小于 6°。总之,这项研究的结果支持在临床环境中使用无标记运动捕捉来检查儿童上肢生物力学。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
Biomedical engineering advances
Biomedical engineering advances Bioengineering, Biomedical Engineering
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
59 days
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信