Explore the vast range of titles available.

Axial postural abnormalities in Parkinson’s Disease (PD) are traditionally assessed using clinical rating scales, although picture-based assessment is considered the gold standard. This study evaluates the reliability and clinical relevance of two markerless body-tracking frameworks, the RGB-D-based Microsoft Azure Kinect (providing the reference KIN_3D model) and the RGB-only Google MediaPipe Pose (MP), using a synchronous dual-camera setup. Forty PD patients performed a 60 s static standing task. We compared KIN_3D with three MP models (at different complexity levels) across horizontal, vertical, sagittal, and 3D joint angles. Results show that lower-complexity MP models achieved high congruence with KIN_3D for trunk and shoulder alignment (ρ > 0.75), while the lateral view significantly improved tracking of sagittal angles (ρ ≥ 0.72). Conversely, the high-complexity model introduced significant skeletal distortions. Clinically, several angular parameters emerged as robust metrics for postural assessment and global motor impairments, while sagittal angles correlated with motor complications. Unexpectedly, a more upright frontal alignment was associated with greater freezing of gait severity, suggesting that static postural metrics may serve as proxies for dynamic gait performance. In addition, both RGB-only and RGB-D frameworks effectively discriminated between postural severity clusters. While the higher-complexity MP model should be avoided due to inaccurate 3D reconstructions, our findings demonstrate that low- and medium-complexity MP models represent a reliable alternative to RGB-D sensors for objective postural assessment in PD, facilitating the widespread application of objective posture measurements in clinical contexts.

The emergence of pose estimation algorithms represents a potential paradigm shift in the study and assessment of human movement. Human pose estimation algorithms leverage advances in computer vision to track human movement automatically from simple videos recorded using common household devices with relatively low-cost cameras (e.g., smartphones, tablets, laptop computers). In our view, these technologies offer clear and exciting potential to make measurement of human movement substantially more accessible; for example, a clinician could perform a quantitative motor assessment directly in a patient’s home, a researcher without access to expensive motion capture equipment could analyze movement kinematics using a smartphone video, and a coach could evaluate player performance with video recordings directly from the field. In this review, we combine expertise and perspectives from physical therapy, speech-language pathology, movement science, and engineering to provide insight into applications of pose estimation in human health and performance. We focus specifically on applications in areas of human development, performance optimization, injury prevention, and motor assessment of persons with neurologic damage or disease. We review relevant literature, share interdisciplinary viewpoints on future applications of these technologies to improve human health and performance, and discuss perceived limitations.

Markerless motion capturing has the potential to provide a low-cost and accessible alternative to traditional marker-based systems for real-world biomechanical assessment. However, before these systems can be put into practice, we need to rigorously evaluate their accuracy in estimating joint kinematics for various gait patterns. This study evaluated the accuracy of a low-cost, open-source, and smartphone-based markerless motion capture system, namely OpenCap, for measuring 3D joint kinematics in healthy and pathological gait compared to a marker-based system. 21 healthy volunteers were instructed to walk with four different gait patterns: physiological, crouch, circumduction, and equinus gait. Three-dimensional kinematic data were simultaneously recorded using the markerless and a marker-based motion capture system. The root mean square error (RMSE) and the peak error were calculated between every joint kinematic variable obtained by both systems. We found an overall RMSE of 5.8 (SD: 1.8 degrees) and a peak error of 11.3 degrees (SD: 3.9). A repeated measures ANOVA with post hoc tests indicated significant differences in RMSE and peak errors between the four gait patterns (p ¡ 0.05). Physiological gait presented the lowest, crouch and circumduction gait the highest errors. Our findings indicate a roughly comparable accuracy to IMU-based approaches and commercial markerless multi-camera solutions. However, errors are still above clinically desirable thresholds of two to five degrees. While our findings highlight the potential of markerless systems for assessing gait kinematics, they also underpin the need to further improve the underlying deep learning algorithms to make markerless pose estimation a valuable tool in clinical settings.

Background Markerless motion capture (MMC) technology has been developed to avoid the need for body marker placement during motion tracking and analysis of human movement. Although researchers have long proposed the use of MMC technology in clinical measurement—identification and measurement of movement kinematics in a clinical population, its actual application is still in its preliminary stages. The benefits of MMC technology are also inconclusive with regard to its use in assessing patients’ conditions. In this review we put a minor focus on the method’s engineering components and sought primarily to determine the current application of MMC as a clinical measurement tool in rehabilitation. Methods A systematic computerized literature search was conducted in PubMed, Medline, CINAHL, CENTRAL, EMBASE, and IEEE. The search keywords used in each database were “Markerless Motion Capture OR Motion Capture OR Motion Capture Technology OR Markerless Motion Capture Technology OR Computer Vision OR Video-based OR Pose Estimation AND Assessment OR Clinical Assessment OR Clinical Measurement OR Assess.” Only peer-reviewed articles that applied MMC technology for clinical measurement were included. The last search took place on March 6, 2023. Details regarding the application of MMC technology for different types of patients and body parts, as well as the assessment results, were summarized. Results A total of 65 studies were included. The MMC systems used for measurement were most frequently used to identify symptoms or to detect differences in movement patterns between disease populations and their healthy counterparts. Patients with Parkinson’s disease (PD) who demonstrated obvious and well-defined physical signs were the largest patient group to which MMC assessment had been applied. Microsoft Kinect was the most frequently used MMC system, although there was a recent trend of motion analysis using video captured with a smartphone camera. Conclusions This review explored the current uses of MMC technology for clinical measurement. MMC technology has the potential to be used as an assessment tool as well as to assist in the detection and identification of symptoms, which might further contribute to the use of an artificial intelligence method for early screening for diseases. Further studies are warranted to develop and integrate MMC system in a platform that can be user-friendly and accurately analyzed by clinicians to extend the use of MMC technology in the disease populations.

Low-cost markerless motion capture systems offer the potential for 3D measurement of joint angles during human movement. This study aimed to validate a smartphone-based markerless motion capture system’s (OpenCap) derived lower extremity kinematics during common return-to-sport tasks, comparing it to an established optoelectronic motion capture system. Athletes with prior anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (12–18 months post-surgery) performed three movements: a jump-landing-rebound, single-leg hop, and lateral-vertical hop. Kinematics were recorded concurrently with two smartphones running OpenCap’s software and with a 10-camera, marker-based motion capture system. Validity of lower extremity joint kinematics was assessed across 437 recorded trials using measures of agreement (coefficient of multiple correlation: CMC) and error (mean absolute error: MAE, root mean squared error: RMSE) across the time series of movement. Agreement was best in the sagittal plane for the knee and hip in all movements (CMC > 0.94), followed by the ankle (CMC = 0.84–0.93). Lower agreement was observed for frontal (CMC = 0.47–0.78) and transverse (CMC = 0.51–0.6) plane motion. OpenCap presented a grand mean error of 3.85° (MAE) and 4.34° (RMSE) across all joint angles and movements. These results were comparable to other available markerless systems. Most notably, OpenCap’s user-friendly interface, free software, and small physical footprint have the potential to extend motion analysis applications beyond conventional biomechanics labs, thus enhancing the accessibility for a diverse range of users.

Gait analysis is an essential tool for detecting biomechanical irregularities, designing personalized rehabilitation plans, and enhancing athletic performance. Currently, gait assessment depends on either visual observation, which lacks consistency between raters and requires clinical expertise, or instrumented evaluation, which is costly, invasive, time-consuming, and requires specialized equipment and trained personnel. Markerless gait analysis using 2D pose estimation techniques has emerged as a potential solution, but it still requires significant computational resources and human involvement, making it challenging to use. This research proposes an automated method for temporal gait analysis that employs the MediaPipe Pose, a low-computational-resource pose estimation model. The study validated this approach against the Vicon motion capture system to evaluate its reliability. The findings reveal that this approach demonstrates good (ICC(2,1) > 0.75) to excellent (ICC(2,1) > 0.90) agreement in all temporal gait parameters except for double support time (right leg switched to left leg) and swing time (right), which only exhibit a moderate (ICC(2,1) > 0.50) agreement. Additionally, this approach produces temporal gait parameters with low mean absolute error. It will be useful in monitoring changes in gait and evaluating the effectiveness of interventions such as rehabilitation or training programs in the community.

Markerless motion capture has recently attracted significant interest in clinical gait analysis and human movement science. Its ease of use and potential to streamline motion capture recordings bear great potential for out-of-the-laboratory measurements in large cohorts. While previous studies have shown that markerless systems can achieve acceptable accuracy and reliability for kinematic parameters of gait, they also noted higher inter-trial variability of markerless data. Since increased inter-trial variability can have important implications for data post-processing and analysis, this study compared the inter-trial variability of simultaneously recorded markerless and marker-based data. For this purpose, the data of 18 healthy volunteers were used who were instructed to simulate four different gait patterns: physiological, crouch, circumduction, and equinus gait. Gait analysis was performed using the smartphone-based markerless system OpenCap and a marker-based motion capture system. We compared the inter-trial variability of both systems and also evaluated if changes in inter-trial variability may depend on the analyzed gait pattern. Compared to the marker-based data, we observed an increase of inter-trial variability for the markerless system ranging from 6.6% to 22.0% for the different gait patterns. Our findings demonstrate that the markerless pose estimation pipelines can introduce additionally variability in the kinematic data across different gait patterns and levels of natural variability. We recommend using averaged waveforms rather than single ones to mitigate this problem. Further, caution is advised when using variability-based metrics in gait and human movement analysis based on markerless data as increased inter-trial variability can lead to misleading results.

Accuracy validation of gait analysis using pose estimation with artificial intelligence (AI) remains inadequate, particularly in objective assessments of absolute error and similarity of waveform patterns. This study aimed to clarify objective measures for absolute error and waveform pattern similarity in gait analysis using pose estimation AI (OpenPose). Additionally, we investigated the feasibility of simultaneous measuring both lower limbs using a single camera from one side. We compared motion analysis data from pose estimation AI using video footage that was synchronized with a three-dimensional motion analysis device. The comparisons involved mean absolute error (MAE) and the coefficient of multiple correlation (CMC) to compare the waveform pattern similarity. The MAE ranged from 2.3 to 3.1° on the camera side and from 3.1 to 4.1° on the opposite side, with slightly higher accuracy on the camera side. Moreover, the CMC ranged from 0.936 to 0.994 on the camera side and from 0.890 to 0.988 on the opposite side, indicating a “very good to excellent” waveform similarity. Gait analysis using a single camera revealed that the precision on both sides was sufficiently robust for clinical evaluation, while measurement accuracy was slightly superior on the camera side.

Markerless motion capture methods are continuously in development to target limitations encountered in marker-, sensor-, or depth-based systems. Previous evaluation of the KinaTrax markerless system was limited by differences in model definitions, gait event methods, and a homogenous subject sample. The purpose of this work was to evaluate the accuracy of spatiotemporal parameters in the markerless system with an updated markerless model, coordinate- and velocity-based gait events, and subjects representing young adult, older adult, and Parkinson’s disease groups. Fifty-seven subjects and 216 trials were included in this analysis. Interclass correlation coefficients showed excellent agreement between the markerless system and a marker-based reference system for all spatial parameters. Temporal variables were similar, except swing time which showed good agreement. Concordance correlation coefficients were similar with all but swing time showing moderate to almost perfect concordance. Bland-Altman bias and limits of agreement (LOA) were small and improved from previous evaluations. Parameters showed similar agreement across coordinate- and velocity-based gait methods with the latter showing generally smaller LOAs. Improvements in spatiotemporal parameters in the present evaluation was due to inclusion of keypoints at the calcanei in the markerless model. Consistency in the calcanei keypoints relative to heel marker placements may improve results further. Similar to previous work, LOAs are within boundaries to detect differences in clinical groups. Results support the use of the markerless system for estimation of spatiotemporal parameters across age and clinical groups, but caution should be taken when generalizing findings due to remaining error in kinematic gait event methods.

Balance studies usually focus on quantities describing the global body motion. Assessing such quantities using classical marker-based approach can be tedious and modify the participant’s behaviour. The recent development of markerless motion capture methods could bypass the issues related to the use of markers. This work compared dynamic balance related quantities obtained with markers and videos. Sixteen young healthy participants performed four different motor tasks: walking at self-selected speed, balance loss, walking on a narrow beam and countermovement jumps. Their movements were recorded simultaneously by marker-based and markerless motion capture systems. Videos were processed using a commercial markerless pose estimation software, Theia3D. The centre of mass position (CoM) was computed, and the associated extrapolated centre of mass position (XCoM) and whole-body angular momentum (WBAM) were derived. Bland-Altman analysis was performed and root mean square difference (RMSD) and coefficient of correlation were computed to compare the results obtained with marker-based and markerless methods. Bias remained of the magnitude of a few mm for CoM and XCoM positions, and RMSD of CoM and XCoM was around 1 cm. RMSD of the WBAM was less than 10 % of the total amplitude in any direction, and bias was less than 1 %. Results suggest that outcomes of balance studies will be similar whether marker-based or markerless motion capture system are used. Nevertheless, one should be careful when assessing dynamic movements such as jumping, as they displayed the biggest differences (both bias and RMSD), although it is unclear whether these differences are due to errors in markerless or marker-based motion capture system.