scholarly journals A Comparison of Inertial Motion Capture Systems: DorsaVi and Xsens

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 24
Author(s):  
Alisa Drapeaux ◽  
Kevin Carlson
Keyword(s):  
Lower Extremity ◽  
Motion Capture ◽  
Testing Procedure ◽  
Sensor Technology ◽  
Strong Correlations ◽  
Validity And Reliability ◽  
Inertial Motion ◽  
Kinematic Data ◽  
Single Leg Squat ◽  
Motion Capture Systems

Background: dorsaVi Professional Suite, founded in 2018, is a 3D wearable sensor technology system that monitors the kinematic data of the lower extremity and lumbar spine. The dorsaVi system is used in the clinical setting to assist with clinical rehabilitation and preventive measures. Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare the inertial motion capture systems: the dorsaVi Professional Suite and Xsens to determine validity and reliability. Methods: This study utilized nine participants (7 female, 2 male) with data collected on two separate sessions. Each subject performed 15 repetitions each of double leg squats, left single leg squat, and right single leg squat during session one and then repeated the same testing procedure 7-10 days later. Kinematic variables measured were tibial inclination, knee varus, and knee valgus. Pearson product moment correlation coefficients were used to demonstrate the relationship within and between the motion capture systems across the knee positions and squat trials. Results: Within system reliability measurements demonstrated strong correlations (r>0.90) of the lower extremity kinematic data between testing sessions. Between system validity measurements also demonstrated strong correlations (r>0.90) across all lower extremity movements. Conclusions: The dorsaVi Professional Suite knee module kinematic data showed strong correlations to the validated motion capture system (Xsens). Thus, a clinician should be confident in using the dorsaVi in the evaluation, diagnosis, and treatment of patients.

scholarly journals Comparative Latency Analysis of Optical and Inertial Motion Capture Systems for Gestural Analysis and Musical Performance

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Geise Santos ◽  
Johnty Wang ◽  
Carolina Brum ◽  
Marcelo M. Wanderley ◽  
Tiago Tavares ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Motion Capture ◽  
Musical Performance ◽  
Inertial Motion ◽  
Latency Analysis ◽  
Gestural Analysis ◽  
Motion Capture Systems

Comparing Motion Capture Systems For Clinical Appropriateness In Lower Extremity Frontal Plane Measurements

2017 ◽  
Vol 49 (5S) ◽  
pp. 310
Author(s):  
Megan Philipp ◽  
Kenneth Jenkins ◽  
Connor Norman ◽  
Harrrison Hall ◽  
Lauren Beres ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lower Extremity ◽  
Motion Capture ◽  
Frontal Plane ◽  
Motion Capture Systems

The possibility of using inertial motion capture systems to solve problems of labor physiology

2020 ◽  
Vol 60 (11) ◽  
pp. 734-737
Author(s):  
E. V. Bondarchuk ◽  
A. G. Merkulova ◽  
S. A. Kalinina
Keyword(s):  
Motion Capture ◽  
Labor Process ◽  
Measuring Instruments ◽  
Production Environment ◽  
Inertial Motion ◽  
Additional Tool ◽  
Standard Measuring ◽  
Ergonomic Analysis ◽  
Comparison Of The Results ◽  
Motion Capture Systems

Introduction. Improving the ergonomics of the workplace, preventing the development of fatigue and diseases of the musculoskeletal system are relevant for workers in all spheres of the modern economy. The physiology of labor is engaged in solving these issues, one of the tasks of which is to conduct an ergonomic analysis, which includes determining the severity of the labor process and determining the rationality of working postures. The search for and approbation of modern methods of increasing the objectivity and reliability of research carried out in production is an urgent direction in labor physiology. The aim of the study is comparison of the results of a hygienic assessment of the severity of the labor process in accordance with the guideline R 2.2.2006-05, carried out using standard techniques and the use of motion capture technology based on IMU-sensors, carried out at the workplace of a specialist in the management of high-rise equipment. Materials and methods. To measure the indicators of the severity of labor in accordance with the guideline R 2.2.2006-05, standard measuring instruments measuring instruments were used. The Xsens system (Netherlands) with wireless IMU-sensors "Awinda" was used as a motion capture system. Results. During this study, the possibility of using inertial motion capture systems was established as a reliable and additional tool for solving problems of labor physiology. Conclusion. It was revealed that this technology allows to increase the objectivity and reliability of ergonomic analysis and to measure quantitative indicators of the severity of labor in any production environment. At the same time, today a significant drawback is the lack of programs for processing the data obtained and the need to use standard measuring instruments.

Relative Strengths and Efficacy of Commonly Used Clinical Motion Capture Systems for Lower Extremity Movements

2017 ◽  
Vol 49 (5S) ◽  
pp. 311
Author(s):  
Kenneth Jenkins ◽  
Megan Philipp ◽  
Lauren Beres ◽  
Connor Norman ◽  
Harrison Hall ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lower Extremity ◽  
Motion Capture ◽  
Motion Capture Systems

scholarly journals Ergonomic Comparison of Four Dental Workplace Concepts Using Inertial Motion Capture for Dentists and Dental Assistants

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (19) ◽  
pp. 10453
Author(s):  
Daniela Ohlendorf ◽  
Laura Fraeulin ◽  
Jasmin Haenel ◽  
Werner Betz ◽  
Christina Erbe ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Motion Capture ◽  
Musculoskeletal Diseases ◽  
Body Parts ◽  
Inertial Motion ◽  
Kinematic Data ◽  
Working Posture ◽  
Dental Assistants ◽  
Very High ◽  
Dental Professionals ◽  
Ergonomic Risk

When the inventory is arranged in a dental practice, a distinction can be made between four different dental workplace concepts (DWCs). Since the prevalence of musculoskeletal diseases in dental professionals is very high, preventive solution need to be investigated. As the conventionally used DWCs have, to date, never been studied in terms of their ergonomics, this study aims to investigate the ergonomic risk when working at the four different DWCs. In total, 75 dentists (37 m/38 f) and 75 dental assistants (16 m/59 f) volunteered to take part in this study. Standardized cooperative working procedures were carried out in a laboratory setting and kinematic data were recorded using an inertial motion capture system. The data were applied to an automated version of the Rapid Upper Limb Assessment (RULA). Comparisons between the DWCs and between the dentists and dental assistants were calculated. In all four DWCs, both dentists and dental assistants spent 95–97% of their working time in the worst possible RULA score. In the trunk, DWCs 1 and 2 were slightly favorable for both dentists and dental assistants, while for the neck, DWC 4 showed a lower risk score for dentists. The ergonomic risk was extremely high in all four DWCs, while only slight advantages for distinct body parts were found. The working posture seemed to be determined by the task itself rather than by the different inventory arrangements.

scholarly journals Validation of a Commercially Available Markerless Motion-Capture System for Trunk and Lower Extremity Kinematics During a Jump-Landing Assessment

2021 ◽  
Vol 56 (2) ◽  
pp. 177-190
Author(s):  
Timothy C. Mauntel ◽  
Kenneth L. Cameron ◽  
Brian Pietrosimone ◽  
Stephen W. Marshall ◽  
Anthony C. Hackney ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lower Extremity ◽  
Motion Capture ◽  
Joint Angle ◽  
Sagittal Plane ◽  
Frontal Plane ◽  
Lower Extremity Injury ◽  
Joint Angles ◽  
Jump Landing ◽  
Markerless Motion Capture ◽  
Motion Capture Systems

Context Field-based, portable motion-capture systems can be used to help identify individuals at greater risk of lower extremity injury. Microsoft Kinect-based markerless motion-capture systems meet these requirements; however, until recently, these systems were generally not automated, required substantial data postprocessing, and were not commercially available. Objective To validate the kinematic measures of a commercially available markerless motion-capture system. Design Descriptive laboratory study. Setting Laboratory. Patients or Other Participants A total of 20 healthy, physically active university students (10 males, 10 females; age = 20.50 ± 2.78 years, height = 170.36 ± 9.82 cm, mass = 68.38 ± 10.07 kg, body mass index = 23.50 ± 2.40 kg/m2). Intervention(s) Participants completed 5 jump-landing trials. Kinematic data were simultaneously recorded using Kinect-based markerless and stereophotogrammetric motion-capture systems. Main Outcome Measure(s) Sagittal- and frontal-plane trunk, hip-joint, and knee-joint angles were identified at initial ground contact of the jump landing (IC), for the maximum joint angle during the landing phase of the initial landing (MAX), and for the joint-angle displacement from IC to MAX (DSP). Outliers were removed, and data were averaged across trials. We used intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs [2,1]) to assess intersystem reliability and the paired-samples t test to examine mean differences (α ≤ .05). Results Agreement existed between the systems (ICC range = −1.52 to 0.96; ICC average = 0.58), with 75.00% (n = 24/32) of the measures being validated (P ≤ .05). Agreement was better for sagittal- (ICC average = 0.84) than frontal- (ICC average = 0.35) plane measures. Agreement was best for MAX (ICC average = 0.77) compared with IC (ICC average = 0.56) and DSP (ICC average = 0.41) measures. Pairwise comparisons identified differences for 18.75% (6/32) of the measures. Fewer differences were observed for sagittal- (0.00%; 0/15) than for frontal- (35.29%; 6/17) plane measures. Between-systems differences were equivalent for MAX (18.18%; 2/11), DSP (18.18%; 2/11), and IC (20.00%; 2/10) measures. The markerless system underestimated sagittal-plane measures (86.67%; 13/15) and overestimated frontal-plane measures (76.47%; 13/17). No trends were observed for overestimating or underestimating IC, MAX, or DSP measures. Conclusions Moderate agreement existed between markerless and stereophotogrammetric motion-capture systems. Better agreement existed for larger (eg, sagittal-plane, MAX) than for smaller (eg, frontal-plane, IC) joint angles. The DSP angles had the worst agreement. Markerless motion-capture systems may help clinicians identify individuals at greater risk of lower extremity injury.

scholarly journals Concurrent assessment of gait kinematics using marker-based and markerless motion capture

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Kanko ◽  
Elise Laende ◽  
Elysia Davis ◽  
W. Scott Selbie ◽  
Kevin J. Deluzio
Keyword(s):  
Motion Capture ◽  
Lower Limb ◽  
Video Data ◽  
Motion Capture System ◽  
Kinematic Data ◽  
Markerless Motion Capture ◽  
Common Marker ◽  
Optical Motion ◽  
Optical Motion Capture ◽  
Motion Capture Systems

AbstractKinematic analysis is a useful and widespread tool used in research and clinical biomechanics for the estimation of human pose and the quantification of human movement. Common marker-based optical motion capture systems are expensive, time intensive, and require highly trained operators to obtain kinematic data. Markerless motion capture systems offer an alternative method for the measurement of kinematic data with several practical benefits. This work compared the kinematics of human gait measured using a deep learning algorithm-based markerless motion capture system to those of a common marker-based motion capture system. Thirty healthy adult participants walked on a treadmill while data were simultaneously recorded using eight video cameras (markerless) and seven infrared optical motion capture cameras (marker-based). Video data were processed using markerless motion capture software, marker-based data were processed using marker-based capture software, and both sets of data were compared. The average root mean square distance (RMSD) between corresponding joints was less than 3 cm for all joints except the hip, which was 4.1 cm. Lower limb segment angles indicated pose estimates from both systems were very similar, with RMSD of less than 6° for all segment angles except those that represent rotations about the long axis of the segment. Lower limb joint angles captured similar patterns for flexion/extension at all joints, ab/adduction at the knee and hip, and toe-in/toe-out at the ankle. These findings demonstrate markerless motion capture can measure similar 3D kinematics to those from marker-based systems.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document