Comparison of Shoulder Range of Motion Quantified with Mobile Phone Video-Based Skeletal Tracking and 3D Motion Capture-Preliminary Study

被引:5
|
作者
van den Hoorn, Wolbert [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Lavaill, Maxence [2 ,3 ]
Cutbush, Kenneth [2 ,4 ]
Gupta, Ashish [2 ,5 ]
Kerr, Graham [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Queensland Univ Technol, Sch Exercise & Nutr Sci, Brisbane, Qld 4059, Australia
[2] Queensland Unit Adv Shoulder Res, Brisbane, Qld 4067, Australia
[3] Queensland Univ Technol, Sch Mech Med & Proc Engn, Brisbane, Qld 4000, Australia
[4] Univ Queensland, Sch Med, Brisbane, Qld 4072, Australia
[5] Greenslopes Private Hosp, Brisbane, Qld 4120, Australia
基金
澳大利亚研究理事会;
关键词
shoulder; range of motion; human pose tracking; 2D pose; clinical assessment; validity; ANALYSIS SYSTEMS; RELIABILITY; VALIDITY; MARKER; VERIFICATION; KINEMATICS; ELEVATION; JOINTS;
D O I
10.3390/s24020534
中图分类号
O65 [分析化学];
学科分类号
070302 ; 081704 ;
摘要
Background: The accuracy of human pose tracking using smartphone camera (2D-pose) to quantify shoulder range of motion (RoM) is not determined. Methods: Twenty healthy individuals were recruited and performed shoulder abduction, adduction, flexion, or extension, captured simultaneously using a smartphone-based human pose estimation algorithm (Apple's vision framework) and using a skin marker-based 3D motion capture system. Validity was assessed by comparing the 2D-pose outcomes against a well-established 3D motion capture protocol. In addition, the impact of iPhone positioning was investigated using three smartphones in multiple vertical and horizontal positions. The relationship and validity were analysed using linear mixed models and Bland-Altman analysis. Results: We found that 2D-pose-based shoulder RoM was consistent with 3D motion capture (linear mixed model: R2 > 0.93) but was somewhat overestimated by the smartphone. Differences were dependent on shoulder movement type and RoM amplitude, with adduction the worst performer among all tested movements. All motion types were described using linear equations. Correction methods are provided to correct potential out-of-plane shoulder movements. Conclusions: Shoulder RoM estimated using a smartphone camera is consistent with 3D motion-capture-derived RoM; however, differences between the systems were observed and are likely explained by differences in thoracic frame definitions.
引用
收藏
页数:20
相关论文
共 4 条
  • [1] Comparison of 3D Joint Angles Measured With the Kinect 2.0 Skeletal Tracker Versus a Marker-Based Motion Capture System
    Guess, Trent M.
    Razu, Swithin
    Jahandar, Amirhossein
    Skubic, Marjorie
    Huo, Zhiyu
    JOURNAL OF APPLIED BIOMECHANICS, 2017, 33 (02) : 176 - 181
  • [2] Suggestion for Camera Location in Monocular Markerless 3D Motion Capture System: Focused on Accuracy Comparison With Marker-Based System for Upper Limb Joints
    Kim, Taeu
    Jung, Myung-Chul
    Mo, Seung-Min
    IEEE ACCESS, 2025, 13 : 47605 - 47616
  • [3] Temporal-spatial reach parameters derived from inertial sensors: Comparison to 3D marker-based motion capture
    Cahill-Rowley, Katelyn
    Rose, Jessica
    JOURNAL OF BIOMECHANICS, 2017, 52 : 11 - 16
  • [4] Biomechanical Motion Changes in Adjacent and Noncontiguous Segments Following Single- Level Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Computed Tomography-Based 3D Motion Capture Study
    Lebl, Darren R.
    Meyers, Kathleen N.
    Altorfer, Franziska C. S.
    Jahandar, Hamidreza
    Pazionis, Theresa J. C.
    Nguyen, Joseph
    O'Leary, Patrick F.
    Wright, Timothy M.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPINE SURGERY, 2024, 18 (03) : 249 - 257