Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Comparison of lower limb and trunk kinematics between markerless and marker-based motion capture systems.
Gait Posture 2017; 52:57-61GP

Abstract

Three dimensional (3-D) motion capture systems are used by researchers and clinicians to analyze the kinematics of human movement. Traditional marker based systems are time consuming and limit the size of studies. Markerless 3-D systems are quicker to use but the differences between data captured in each system is unclear.

AIM

To examine the relationship of kinematic data captured by marker based and markerless motion capture systems.

METHODS

Movement was assessed in two tests: a simple knee flexion test and single leg squat with a marker based protocol (Vicon) and a markerless protocol (Organic Motion).

RESULTS

There was no significant difference between protocols in knee flexion angle (p=0.33). In single leg squat there was no significant difference in 9 of 13 clinically relevant joint angles in the change in angle from the start to the peak of squat. There were significant differences in the angle at the peak of the squat for 9 of 13 joint angles.

DISCUSSION

This study provides evidence that a marker-based and a markerless protocol report similar ranges of change in angle from the start of a squat to peak squat in the pelvis and lower limb in single leg squat. Specific joint angles should not be compared between protocols.

Authors+Show Affiliations

La Trobe Sport and Exercise Medicine Research Centre, School of Allied Health, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia. Electronic address: m.perrott@latrobe.edu.au.La Trobe Sport and Exercise Medicine Research Centre, School of Allied Health, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia; Australian Collaboration for Research into Injury in Sport and its Prevention, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia.La Trobe Sport and Exercise Medicine Research Centre, School of Allied Health, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia; Australian Collaboration for Research into Injury in Sport and its Prevention, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia.La Trobe Sport and Exercise Medicine Research Centre, School of Allied Health, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia.

Pub Type(s)

Comparative Study
Journal Article

Language

eng

PubMed ID

27871019

Citation

Perrott, Margaret A., et al. "Comparison of Lower Limb and Trunk Kinematics Between Markerless and Marker-based Motion Capture Systems." Gait & Posture, vol. 52, 2017, pp. 57-61.
Perrott MA, Pizzari T, Cook J, et al. Comparison of lower limb and trunk kinematics between markerless and marker-based motion capture systems. Gait Posture. 2017;52:57-61.
Perrott, M. A., Pizzari, T., Cook, J., & McClelland, J. A. (2017). Comparison of lower limb and trunk kinematics between markerless and marker-based motion capture systems. Gait & Posture, 52, pp. 57-61. doi:10.1016/j.gaitpost.2016.10.020.
Perrott MA, et al. Comparison of Lower Limb and Trunk Kinematics Between Markerless and Marker-based Motion Capture Systems. Gait Posture. 2017;52:57-61. PubMed PMID: 27871019.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Comparison of lower limb and trunk kinematics between markerless and marker-based motion capture systems. AU - Perrott,Margaret A, AU - Pizzari,Tania, AU - Cook,Jill, AU - McClelland,Jodie A, Y1 - 2016/10/31/ PY - 2016/05/01/received PY - 2016/10/18/revised PY - 2016/10/24/accepted PY - 2016/11/22/pubmed PY - 2017/12/12/medline PY - 2016/11/22/entrez KW - Kinematics KW - Marker KW - Markerless KW - Motion capture KW - Single leg squat SP - 57 EP - 61 JF - Gait & posture JO - Gait Posture VL - 52 N2 - : Three dimensional (3-D) motion capture systems are used by researchers and clinicians to analyze the kinematics of human movement. Traditional marker based systems are time consuming and limit the size of studies. Markerless 3-D systems are quicker to use but the differences between data captured in each system is unclear. AIM: To examine the relationship of kinematic data captured by marker based and markerless motion capture systems. METHODS: Movement was assessed in two tests: a simple knee flexion test and single leg squat with a marker based protocol (Vicon) and a markerless protocol (Organic Motion). RESULTS: There was no significant difference between protocols in knee flexion angle (p=0.33). In single leg squat there was no significant difference in 9 of 13 clinically relevant joint angles in the change in angle from the start to the peak of squat. There were significant differences in the angle at the peak of the squat for 9 of 13 joint angles. DISCUSSION: This study provides evidence that a marker-based and a markerless protocol report similar ranges of change in angle from the start of a squat to peak squat in the pelvis and lower limb in single leg squat. Specific joint angles should not be compared between protocols. SN - 1879-2219 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/27871019/Comparison_of_lower_limb_and_trunk_kinematics_between_markerless_and_marker_based_motion_capture_systems_ L2 - https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0966-6362(16)30623-3 DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -