Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
A Systematic Review of the Accuracy, Validity, and Reliability of Markerless Versus Marker Camera-Based 3D Motion Capture for Industrial Ergonomic Risk Analysis
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
A Systematic Review of the Accuracy, Validity, and Reliability of Markerless Versus Marker Camera-Based 3D Motion Capture for Industrial Ergonomic Risk Analysis
Do you wish to request the book?
A Systematic Review of the Accuracy, Validity, and Reliability of Markerless Versus Marker Camera-Based 3D Motion Capture for Industrial Ergonomic Risk Analysis
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
A Systematic Review of the Accuracy, Validity, and Reliability of Markerless Versus Marker Camera-Based 3D Motion Capture for Industrial Ergonomic Risk Analysis
2025
Overview
Ergonomic risk assessment is crucial for preventing work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WMSDs), which often arise from repetitive tasks, prolonged sitting, and load handling, leading to absenteeism and increased healthcare costs. Biomechanical risk assessment, such as RULA/REBA, is increasingly being enhanced by camera-based motion capture systems, either marker-based (MBSs) or markerless systems (MCBSs). This systematic review compared MBSs and MCBSs regarding accuracy, validity, and reliability for industrial ergonomic risk analysis. A comprehensive search of PubMed, WoS, ScienceDirect, IEEE Xplore, and PEDro (31 May 2025) identified 898 records; after screening with PICO-based eligibility criteria, 20 quantitative studies were included. Methodological quality was assessed with the COSMIN Risk of Bias tool, synthesized using PRISMA 2020, and graded with EBRO criteria. MBSs showed the highest precision (0.5–1.5 mm error) and reliability (ICC > 0.90) but were limited by cost and laboratory constraints. MCBSs demonstrated moderate-to-high accuracy (5–20 mm error; mean joint-angle error: 2.31° ± 4.00°) and good reliability (ICC > 0.80), with greater practicality in field settings. Several studies reported strong validity for RULA/REBA prediction (accuracy up to 89%, κ = 0.71). In conclusion, MCBSs provide a feasible, scalable alternative to traditional ergonomic assessment, combining reliability with usability and supporting integration into occupational risk prevention.
Publisher
MDPI AG,Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI)
