Beste Yilmaz, Umut Ozsoy, Yilmaz Yildirim, Ege Alkan
{"title":"Depth sensor technology in facial movement analysis: A comparative evaluation with marker-based motion analysis","authors":"Beste Yilmaz, Umut Ozsoy, Yilmaz Yildirim, Ege Alkan","doi":"10.1016/j.jelekin.2025.103005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>This study evaluates the reliability and agreement of depth sensor technology compared to marker-based motion analysis for facial movement assessment. Depth sensors, such as the Kinect-V2, offer a non-invasive alternative, but their accuracy in facial kinematics remains uncertain.</div></div><div><h3>Method</h3><div>100 healthy participants (50 male, 50 female) performed six facial movements— opening −mouth, smiling, eyebrow-lifting, forced-eye-closure, whistling, and frowning. These were recorded simultaneously using a marker-based motion system and a Kinect-V2 depth sensor. Data were analyzed for asymmetry, intra-method reliability using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), and agreement via Bland-Altman analysis.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Bland-Altman analysis showed mean biases for facial movements: opening-mouth (−0.99), smiling (2.7), eyebrow-lifting (−1.85), forced-eye-closure (−1.77), whistling (11.59), and frowning (20.82). Mean asymmetry values using the marker-based system vs. depth sensor: smiling (8.16%vs.4.22%), eyebrow-lifting (7.32%vs.6.88%), eye-closure (8.42%vs.5.39%), and frowning (11.50vs.13.86%). ICC values ranged from 0.41 (forced-eye-closure) to 0.80 (eyebrow lifting) for the marker-based system and 0.61 (forced-eye-closure) to 0.85 (mouth opening) for the depth sensor.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>While depth sensors show strong intra-method reliability, they demonstrate biases and broader limits of agreement for subtle expressions. Further algorithmic improvements are needed for clinical applications.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":56123,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology","volume":"82 ","pages":"Article 103005"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1050641125000318","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective
This study evaluates the reliability and agreement of depth sensor technology compared to marker-based motion analysis for facial movement assessment. Depth sensors, such as the Kinect-V2, offer a non-invasive alternative, but their accuracy in facial kinematics remains uncertain.
Method
100 healthy participants (50 male, 50 female) performed six facial movements— opening −mouth, smiling, eyebrow-lifting, forced-eye-closure, whistling, and frowning. These were recorded simultaneously using a marker-based motion system and a Kinect-V2 depth sensor. Data were analyzed for asymmetry, intra-method reliability using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), and agreement via Bland-Altman analysis.
Results
Bland-Altman analysis showed mean biases for facial movements: opening-mouth (−0.99), smiling (2.7), eyebrow-lifting (−1.85), forced-eye-closure (−1.77), whistling (11.59), and frowning (20.82). Mean asymmetry values using the marker-based system vs. depth sensor: smiling (8.16%vs.4.22%), eyebrow-lifting (7.32%vs.6.88%), eye-closure (8.42%vs.5.39%), and frowning (11.50vs.13.86%). ICC values ranged from 0.41 (forced-eye-closure) to 0.80 (eyebrow lifting) for the marker-based system and 0.61 (forced-eye-closure) to 0.85 (mouth opening) for the depth sensor.
Conclusions
While depth sensors show strong intra-method reliability, they demonstrate biases and broader limits of agreement for subtle expressions. Further algorithmic improvements are needed for clinical applications.
期刊介绍:
Journal of Electromyography & Kinesiology is the primary source for outstanding original articles on the study of human movement from muscle contraction via its motor units and sensory system to integrated motion through mechanical and electrical detection techniques.
As the official publication of the International Society of Electrophysiology and Kinesiology, the journal is dedicated to publishing the best work in all areas of electromyography and kinesiology, including: control of movement, muscle fatigue, muscle and nerve properties, joint biomechanics and electrical stimulation. Applications in rehabilitation, sports & exercise, motion analysis, ergonomics, alternative & complimentary medicine, measures of human performance and technical articles on electromyographic signal processing are welcome.