Heather Cameron-Whytock , Hannah Divall , Martin Lewis , Charlotte Apps
{"title":"基于标记和无标记的马术骑手运动分析的动作捕捉:比较研究","authors":"Heather Cameron-Whytock , Hannah Divall , Martin Lewis , Charlotte Apps","doi":"10.1016/j.jbiomech.2025.112728","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The study hypothesised that a markerless motion capture system can provide kinematic data comparable to a traditional marker-based system for riders mounted on a horse. The objective was to assess the markerless system’s accuracy by directly comparing joint and segment angle measurements taken during walking and trotting with those obtained from a marker-based system. Ten healthy adult participants performed five dynamic trials during walking and trotting. A twelve-camera marker-based system and eight-camera 2D video-based system were synchronised. Three-dimensional hip, knee, shoulder and elbow joint angles, and the global trunk and pelvis angle were computed for comparison between the two systems. To assess the error between systems, the root mean square difference (RMSD) was averaged across each gait cycle and statistical parametric mapping (SPM) paired t-tests were applied. The sagittal trunk angle had the lowest RMSD of 2.0° and elbow rotation had the highest RMSD of 19°, with the same values for walking and trotting. SPM indicated increased hip flexion (0–100 %, p < 0.001) and elbow flexion (24–47 %, p = 0.03; 63–100 %, p < 0.001) in the walking gait cycle for the markerless system. A lack of joint range of motion and obscured medial limbs during walking whilst mounted on horses may cause increased offsets for markerless data in equestrian riders. No significant differences were found for the transverse plane, yet there tended to be increased RMSD. This lack of consistency suggests results from the transverse plane in equestrian riders should be interpreted with caution. Study findings indicate that markerless technology has the potential to be a suitable alternative to marker-based systems for assessment of equestrian riders, dependent on the segment/joint angle of interest and the level of acceptable error. These results indicate that markerless systems can effectively be utilised for rider biofeedback, though their application may be limited for specific joint analyses.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":15168,"journal":{"name":"Journal of biomechanics","volume":"186 ","pages":"Article 112728"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Marker based and markerless motion capture for equestrian rider kinematic analysis: A comparative study\",\"authors\":\"Heather Cameron-Whytock , Hannah Divall , Martin Lewis , Charlotte Apps\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jbiomech.2025.112728\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>The study hypothesised that a markerless motion capture system can provide kinematic data comparable to a traditional marker-based system for riders mounted on a horse. The objective was to assess the markerless system’s accuracy by directly comparing joint and segment angle measurements taken during walking and trotting with those obtained from a marker-based system. Ten healthy adult participants performed five dynamic trials during walking and trotting. A twelve-camera marker-based system and eight-camera 2D video-based system were synchronised. Three-dimensional hip, knee, shoulder and elbow joint angles, and the global trunk and pelvis angle were computed for comparison between the two systems. To assess the error between systems, the root mean square difference (RMSD) was averaged across each gait cycle and statistical parametric mapping (SPM) paired t-tests were applied. The sagittal trunk angle had the lowest RMSD of 2.0° and elbow rotation had the highest RMSD of 19°, with the same values for walking and trotting. SPM indicated increased hip flexion (0–100 %, p < 0.001) and elbow flexion (24–47 %, p = 0.03; 63–100 %, p < 0.001) in the walking gait cycle for the markerless system. A lack of joint range of motion and obscured medial limbs during walking whilst mounted on horses may cause increased offsets for markerless data in equestrian riders. No significant differences were found for the transverse plane, yet there tended to be increased RMSD. This lack of consistency suggests results from the transverse plane in equestrian riders should be interpreted with caution. Study findings indicate that markerless technology has the potential to be a suitable alternative to marker-based systems for assessment of equestrian riders, dependent on the segment/joint angle of interest and the level of acceptable error. These results indicate that markerless systems can effectively be utilised for rider biofeedback, though their application may be limited for specific joint analyses.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15168,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of biomechanics\",\"volume\":\"186 \",\"pages\":\"Article 112728\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of biomechanics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0021929025002404\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"BIOPHYSICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of biomechanics","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0021929025002404","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BIOPHYSICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Marker based and markerless motion capture for equestrian rider kinematic analysis: A comparative study
The study hypothesised that a markerless motion capture system can provide kinematic data comparable to a traditional marker-based system for riders mounted on a horse. The objective was to assess the markerless system’s accuracy by directly comparing joint and segment angle measurements taken during walking and trotting with those obtained from a marker-based system. Ten healthy adult participants performed five dynamic trials during walking and trotting. A twelve-camera marker-based system and eight-camera 2D video-based system were synchronised. Three-dimensional hip, knee, shoulder and elbow joint angles, and the global trunk and pelvis angle were computed for comparison between the two systems. To assess the error between systems, the root mean square difference (RMSD) was averaged across each gait cycle and statistical parametric mapping (SPM) paired t-tests were applied. The sagittal trunk angle had the lowest RMSD of 2.0° and elbow rotation had the highest RMSD of 19°, with the same values for walking and trotting. SPM indicated increased hip flexion (0–100 %, p < 0.001) and elbow flexion (24–47 %, p = 0.03; 63–100 %, p < 0.001) in the walking gait cycle for the markerless system. A lack of joint range of motion and obscured medial limbs during walking whilst mounted on horses may cause increased offsets for markerless data in equestrian riders. No significant differences were found for the transverse plane, yet there tended to be increased RMSD. This lack of consistency suggests results from the transverse plane in equestrian riders should be interpreted with caution. Study findings indicate that markerless technology has the potential to be a suitable alternative to marker-based systems for assessment of equestrian riders, dependent on the segment/joint angle of interest and the level of acceptable error. These results indicate that markerless systems can effectively be utilised for rider biofeedback, though their application may be limited for specific joint analyses.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Biomechanics publishes reports of original and substantial findings using the principles of mechanics to explore biological problems. Analytical, as well as experimental papers may be submitted, and the journal accepts original articles, surveys and perspective articles (usually by Editorial invitation only), book reviews and letters to the Editor. The criteria for acceptance of manuscripts include excellence, novelty, significance, clarity, conciseness and interest to the readership.
Papers published in the journal may cover a wide range of topics in biomechanics, including, but not limited to:
-Fundamental Topics - Biomechanics of the musculoskeletal, cardiovascular, and respiratory systems, mechanics of hard and soft tissues, biofluid mechanics, mechanics of prostheses and implant-tissue interfaces, mechanics of cells.
-Cardiovascular and Respiratory Biomechanics - Mechanics of blood-flow, air-flow, mechanics of the soft tissues, flow-tissue or flow-prosthesis interactions.
-Cell Biomechanics - Biomechanic analyses of cells, membranes and sub-cellular structures; the relationship of the mechanical environment to cell and tissue response.
-Dental Biomechanics - Design and analysis of dental tissues and prostheses, mechanics of chewing.
-Functional Tissue Engineering - The role of biomechanical factors in engineered tissue replacements and regenerative medicine.
-Injury Biomechanics - Mechanics of impact and trauma, dynamics of man-machine interaction.
-Molecular Biomechanics - Mechanical analyses of biomolecules.
-Orthopedic Biomechanics - Mechanics of fracture and fracture fixation, mechanics of implants and implant fixation, mechanics of bones and joints, wear of natural and artificial joints.
-Rehabilitation Biomechanics - Analyses of gait, mechanics of prosthetics and orthotics.
-Sports Biomechanics - Mechanical analyses of sports performance.