使用无标记运动捕捉和肌肉骨骼模型：关节运动学评估

IF 1.4 4区医学 Q4 ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL

Technology and Health Care Pub Date : 2024-01-01 DOI:10.3233/THC-240202

Simon Auer, Franz Süß, Sebastian Dendorfer

{"title":"使用无标记运动捕捉和肌肉骨骼模型：关节运动学评估","authors":"Simon Auer, Franz Süß, Sebastian Dendorfer","doi":"10.3233/THC-240202","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: This study presents a comprehensive comparison between a marker-based motion capture system (MMC) and a video-based motion capture system (VMC) in the context of kinematic analysis using musculoskeletal models.Objective: Focusing on joint angles, the study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of VMC as a viable alternative for biomechanical research.Methods: Eighteen healthy subjects performed isolated movements with 17 joint degrees of freedom, and their kinematic data were collected using both an MMC and a VMC setup. The kinematic data were entered into the AnyBody Modelling System, which enables the calculation of joint angles. The mean absolute error (MAE) was calculated to quantify the deviations between the two systems.Results: The results showed good agreement between VMC and MMC at several joint angles. In particular, the shoulder, hip and knee joints showed small deviations in kinematics with MAE values of 4.8∘, 6.8∘ and 3.5∘, respectively. However, the study revealed problems in tracking hand and elbow movements, resulting in higher MAE values of 13.7∘ and 27.7∘. Deviations were also higher for head and thoracic movements.Conclusion: Overall, VMC showed promising results for lower body and shoulder kinematics. However, the tracking of the wrist and pelvis still needs to be refined. The research results provide a basis for further investigations that promote the fusion of VMC and musculoskeletal models.","PeriodicalId":48978,"journal":{"name":"Technology and Health Care","volume":" ","pages":"3433-3442"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11492134/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Using markerless motion capture and musculoskeletal models: An evaluation of joint kinematics.\",\"authors\":\"Simon Auer, Franz Süß, Sebastian Dendorfer\",\"doi\":\"10.3233/THC-240202\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: This study presents a comprehensive comparison between a marker-based motion capture system (MMC) and a video-based motion capture system (VMC) in the context of kinematic analysis using musculoskeletal models.Objective: Focusing on joint angles, the study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of VMC as a viable alternative for biomechanical research.Methods: Eighteen healthy subjects performed isolated movements with 17 joint degrees of freedom, and their kinematic data were collected using both an MMC and a VMC setup. The kinematic data were entered into the AnyBody Modelling System, which enables the calculation of joint angles. The mean absolute error (MAE) was calculated to quantify the deviations between the two systems.Results: The results showed good agreement between VMC and MMC at several joint angles. In particular, the shoulder, hip and knee joints showed small deviations in kinematics with MAE values of 4.8∘, 6.8∘ and 3.5∘, respectively. However, the study revealed problems in tracking hand and elbow movements, resulting in higher MAE values of 13.7∘ and 27.7∘. Deviations were also higher for head and thoracic movements.Conclusion: Overall, VMC showed promising results for lower body and shoulder kinematics. However, the tracking of the wrist and pelvis still needs to be refined. The research results provide a basis for further investigations that promote the fusion of VMC and musculoskeletal models.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48978,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Technology and Health Care\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"3433-3442\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11492134/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Technology and Health Care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3233/THC-240202\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Technology and Health Care","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3233/THC-240202","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

背景：本研究对基于标记的运动捕捉系统（MMC）和基于视频的运动捕捉系统（VMC）进行了全面比较：本研究对基于标记的运动捕捉系统（MMC）和基于视频的运动捕捉系统（VMC）在使用肌肉骨骼模型进行运动学分析方面进行了全面比较：本研究以关节角度为重点，旨在评估视频运动捕捉系统作为生物力学研究可行替代方案的准确性：方法：18 名健康受试者进行了具有 17 个关节自由度的孤立运动，并使用 MMC 和 VMC 装置收集了他们的运动学数据。将运动学数据输入 AnyBody 建模系统，该系统可计算关节角度。计算平均绝对误差（MAE）以量化两个系统之间的偏差：结果表明，在几个关节角度上，VMC 和 MMC 的一致性很好。特别是肩关节、髋关节和膝关节的运动学偏差较小，MAE 值分别为 4.8∘、6.8∘ 和 3.5∘。然而，研究发现在跟踪手部和肘部运动时存在问题，导致 MAE 值分别高达 13.7∘和 27.7∘。头部和胸部运动的偏差也较大：总体而言，VMC 在下半身和肩部运动学方面显示出良好的效果。结论：总体而言，VMC 在下半身和肩部运动学方面显示出良好的效果，但对手腕和骨盆的追踪仍需改进。研究结果为进一步研究提供了基础，促进了 VMC 与肌肉骨骼模型的融合。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Using markerless motion capture and musculoskeletal models: An evaluation of joint kinematics.

Background: This study presents a comprehensive comparison between a marker-based motion capture system (MMC) and a video-based motion capture system (VMC) in the context of kinematic analysis using musculoskeletal models.

Objective: Focusing on joint angles, the study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of VMC as a viable alternative for biomechanical research.

Methods: Eighteen healthy subjects performed isolated movements with 17 joint degrees of freedom, and their kinematic data were collected using both an MMC and a VMC setup. The kinematic data were entered into the AnyBody Modelling System, which enables the calculation of joint angles. The mean absolute error (MAE) was calculated to quantify the deviations between the two systems.

Results: The results showed good agreement between VMC and MMC at several joint angles. In particular, the shoulder, hip and knee joints showed small deviations in kinematics with MAE values of 4.8∘, 6.8∘ and 3.5∘, respectively. However, the study revealed problems in tracking hand and elbow movements, resulting in higher MAE values of 13.7∘ and 27.7∘. Deviations were also higher for head and thoracic movements.

Conclusion: Overall, VMC showed promising results for lower body and shoulder kinematics. However, the tracking of the wrist and pelvis still needs to be refined. The research results provide a basis for further investigations that promote the fusion of VMC and musculoskeletal models.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Technology and Health Care HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL

CiteScore

2.10

自引率

6.20%

发文量

282

审稿时长

>12 weeks

期刊介绍： Technology and Health Care is intended to serve as a forum for the presentation of original articles and technical notes, observing rigorous scientific standards. Furthermore, upon invitation, reviews, tutorials, discussion papers and minisymposia are featured. The main focus of THC is related to the overlapping areas of engineering and medicine. The following types of contributions are considered: 1.Original articles: New concepts, procedures and devices associated with the use of technology in medical research and clinical practice are presented to a readership with a widespread background in engineering and/or medicine. In particular, the clinical benefit deriving from the application of engineering methods and devices in clinical medicine should be demonstrated. Typically, full length original contributions have a length of 4000 words, thereby taking duly into account figures and tables. 2.Technical Notes and Short Communications: Technical Notes relate to novel technical developments with relevance for clinical medicine. In Short Communications, clinical applications are shortly described. 3.Both Technical Notes and Short Communications typically have a length of 1500 words. Reviews and Tutorials (upon invitation only): Tutorial and educational articles for persons with a primarily medical background on principles of engineering with particular significance for biomedical applications and vice versa are presented. The Editorial Board is responsible for the selection of topics. 4.Minisymposia (upon invitation only): Under the leadership of a Special Editor, controversial or important issues relating to health care are highlighted and discussed by various authors. 5.Letters to the Editors: Discussions or short statements (not indexed).