无标记运动捕获和惯性测量单元对动态运动量化的有效性和可用性。

IF 4.1 2区 医学 Q1 SPORT SCIENCES
Nathan A Edwards, Jaclyn B Caccese, Ryan E Tracy, Joshua Hagen, Catherine C Quatman-Yates, James OñATE
{"title":"无标记运动捕获和惯性测量单元对动态运动量化的有效性和可用性。","authors":"Nathan A Edwards, Jaclyn B Caccese, Ryan E Tracy, Joshua Hagen, Catherine C Quatman-Yates, James OñATE","doi":"10.1249/MSS.0000000000003579","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Motion capture technology is quickly evolving, providing researchers, clinicians, and coaches with more access to biomechanics data. Markerless motion capture and inertial measurement units (IMUs) are continually developing biomechanics tools that need validation for dynamic movements before widespread use in applied settings. This study evaluated the validity of a markerless motion capture, IMU, and red, green, blue, and depth (RGBD) camera system as compared with marker-based motion capture during countermovement jumps, overhead squats, lunges, and runs with cuts.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Thirty adults were recruited for this study (sex: 18 females, 12 males; age: 25.4 ± 8.6 yrs; height: 1.71 ± 0.08 m; weight: 71.6 ± 11.5 kg). Data were collected simultaneously with four motion capture technologies (i.e., Vicon, marker-based; Theia/Optitrack, markerless; APDM Opals, IMUs; and Vald HumanTrak, RGBD camera). System validity for lower and upper body joint angles was evaluated using bias, root mean squared error (RMSE), precision, maximum absolute error, and intraclass correlation coefficients. System usability was descriptively analyzed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, markerless motion capture had the highest validity (sagittal plane RMSE: 3.20°-15.66°; frontal plane RMSE: 2.12°-9.14°; transverse plane RMSE: 3.160°-56.61°), followed by the IMU system (sagittal plane RMSE: 8.11°-28.37°; frontal plane RMSE: 3.26°-16.98°; transverse plane RMSE: 5.08°-116.75°), and lastly the RGBD system (sagittal plane bias: 0.55°-129.48°; frontal plane bias: 1.35°-52.06°).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Markerless motion capture and IMUs have moderate validity for joint kinematics, whereas the RGBD system did not have adequate validity. Markerless systems have lower data processing time, require moderate technical expertise, but have high data storage size. IMUs are easier to use, can collect data in any location, but require participant set-up. Overall, individuals using motion capture should consider the specific movements, testing locations, and technical expertise available before selecting a system.</p>","PeriodicalId":18426,"journal":{"name":"Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise","volume":" ","pages":"641-655"},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Validity and Usability of Markerless Motion Capture and Inertial Measurement Units for Quantifying Dynamic Movements.\",\"authors\":\"Nathan A Edwards, Jaclyn B Caccese, Ryan E Tracy, Joshua Hagen, Catherine C Quatman-Yates, James OñATE\",\"doi\":\"10.1249/MSS.0000000000003579\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Motion capture technology is quickly evolving, providing researchers, clinicians, and coaches with more access to biomechanics data. Markerless motion capture and inertial measurement units (IMUs) are continually developing biomechanics tools that need validation for dynamic movements before widespread use in applied settings. This study evaluated the validity of a markerless motion capture, IMU, and red, green, blue, and depth (RGBD) camera system as compared with marker-based motion capture during countermovement jumps, overhead squats, lunges, and runs with cuts.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Thirty adults were recruited for this study (sex: 18 females, 12 males; age: 25.4 ± 8.6 yrs; height: 1.71 ± 0.08 m; weight: 71.6 ± 11.5 kg). Data were collected simultaneously with four motion capture technologies (i.e., Vicon, marker-based; Theia/Optitrack, markerless; APDM Opals, IMUs; and Vald HumanTrak, RGBD camera). System validity for lower and upper body joint angles was evaluated using bias, root mean squared error (RMSE), precision, maximum absolute error, and intraclass correlation coefficients. System usability was descriptively analyzed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, markerless motion capture had the highest validity (sagittal plane RMSE: 3.20°-15.66°; frontal plane RMSE: 2.12°-9.14°; transverse plane RMSE: 3.160°-56.61°), followed by the IMU system (sagittal plane RMSE: 8.11°-28.37°; frontal plane RMSE: 3.26°-16.98°; transverse plane RMSE: 5.08°-116.75°), and lastly the RGBD system (sagittal plane bias: 0.55°-129.48°; frontal plane bias: 1.35°-52.06°).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Markerless motion capture and IMUs have moderate validity for joint kinematics, whereas the RGBD system did not have adequate validity. Markerless systems have lower data processing time, require moderate technical expertise, but have high data storage size. IMUs are easier to use, can collect data in any location, but require participant set-up. Overall, individuals using motion capture should consider the specific movements, testing locations, and technical expertise available before selecting a system.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":18426,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"641-655\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0000000000003579\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/10/9 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"SPORT SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0000000000003579","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/10/9 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SPORT SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:运动捕捉技术正在迅速发展,为研究人员、临床医生和教练提供更多的生物力学数据。无标记运动捕捉和惯性测量单元(imu)正在不断开发生物力学工具,在广泛应用于应用环境之前,需要对动态运动进行验证。本研究评估了无标记动作捕捉、IMU、红、绿、蓝和深度(RGBD)相机系统与基于标记的动作捕捉在反动作跳跃、头顶深蹲、弓步和带切跑时的有效性。方法:本研究招募30名成年人(性别:女性18人,男性12人;年龄:25.4±8.6岁;高度:1.71±0.08 m;重量:71.6±11.5 kg)。采用四种运动捕捉技术(即基于Vicon标记的,Theia/Optitrack无标记的,APDM Opals - imu和Vald HumanTrak - RGBD相机)同时收集数据。采用偏倚、均方根误差(RMSE)、精密度、最大绝对误差和类内相关系数评估上下关节角的系统效度。对系统可用性进行了描述性分析。结果:总体而言,无标记动作捕捉的效度最高(矢状面RMSE: 3.20 ~ 15.66°;正面RMSE: 2.12-9.14°;横向RMSE: 3.160 ~ 56.61°),其次是IMU系统(矢状面RMSE: 8.11 ~ 28.37°;正面RMSE: 3.26-16.98°;横切面RMSE: 5.08-116.75°),最后是RGBD系统(矢状面偏差:0.55-129.48°;正面偏置:1.35-52.06°)。结论:无标记运动捕捉和imu对关节运动学具有中等效度,而RGBD系统没有足够的效度。无标记系统具有较低的数据处理时间,需要适度的技术专长,但具有较高的数据存储大小。imu更容易使用,可以在任何位置收集数据,但需要参与者设置。总的来说,使用动作捕捉的个人应该在选择系统之前考虑特定的运动、测试位置和可用的技术专长。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Validity and Usability of Markerless Motion Capture and Inertial Measurement Units for Quantifying Dynamic Movements.

Purpose: Motion capture technology is quickly evolving, providing researchers, clinicians, and coaches with more access to biomechanics data. Markerless motion capture and inertial measurement units (IMUs) are continually developing biomechanics tools that need validation for dynamic movements before widespread use in applied settings. This study evaluated the validity of a markerless motion capture, IMU, and red, green, blue, and depth (RGBD) camera system as compared with marker-based motion capture during countermovement jumps, overhead squats, lunges, and runs with cuts.

Methods: Thirty adults were recruited for this study (sex: 18 females, 12 males; age: 25.4 ± 8.6 yrs; height: 1.71 ± 0.08 m; weight: 71.6 ± 11.5 kg). Data were collected simultaneously with four motion capture technologies (i.e., Vicon, marker-based; Theia/Optitrack, markerless; APDM Opals, IMUs; and Vald HumanTrak, RGBD camera). System validity for lower and upper body joint angles was evaluated using bias, root mean squared error (RMSE), precision, maximum absolute error, and intraclass correlation coefficients. System usability was descriptively analyzed.

Results: Overall, markerless motion capture had the highest validity (sagittal plane RMSE: 3.20°-15.66°; frontal plane RMSE: 2.12°-9.14°; transverse plane RMSE: 3.160°-56.61°), followed by the IMU system (sagittal plane RMSE: 8.11°-28.37°; frontal plane RMSE: 3.26°-16.98°; transverse plane RMSE: 5.08°-116.75°), and lastly the RGBD system (sagittal plane bias: 0.55°-129.48°; frontal plane bias: 1.35°-52.06°).

Conclusions: Markerless motion capture and IMUs have moderate validity for joint kinematics, whereas the RGBD system did not have adequate validity. Markerless systems have lower data processing time, require moderate technical expertise, but have high data storage size. IMUs are easier to use, can collect data in any location, but require participant set-up. Overall, individuals using motion capture should consider the specific movements, testing locations, and technical expertise available before selecting a system.

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
CiteScore
7.70
自引率
4.90%
发文量
2568
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise® features original investigations, clinical studies, and comprehensive reviews on current topics in sports medicine and exercise science. With this leading multidisciplinary journal, exercise physiologists, physiatrists, physical therapists, team physicians, and athletic trainers get a vital exchange of information from basic and applied science, medicine, education, and allied health fields.
×
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