{"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.
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