Edwards Nathan A, Caccese Jaclyn B, Tracy Ryan E, Hagen Joshua, Quatman-Yates Catherine C, OñATE James
School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2025 Mar 1;57(3):641-655. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0000000000003579. Epub 2024 Oct 9.
Motion capture technology is quickly evolving, providing researchers, clinicians, and coaches with more access to biomechanics data. Markerless motion capture and inertial measurement units (IMUs) are continually developing biomechanics tools that need validation for dynamic movements before widespread use in applied settings. This study evaluated the validity of a markerless motion capture, IMU, and red, green, blue, and depth (RGBD) camera system as compared with marker-based motion capture during countermovement jumps, overhead squats, lunges, and runs with cuts.
Thirty adults were recruited for this study (sex: 18 females, 12 males; age: 25.4 ± 8.6 yrs; height: 1.71 ± 0.08 m; weight: 71.6 ± 11.5 kg). Data were collected simultaneously with four motion capture technologies (i.e., Vicon, marker-based; Theia/Optitrack, markerless; APDM Opals, IMUs; and Vald HumanTrak, RGBD camera). System validity for lower and upper body joint angles was evaluated using bias, root mean squared error (RMSE), precision, maximum absolute error, and intraclass correlation coefficients. System usability was descriptively analyzed.
Overall, markerless motion capture had the highest validity (sagittal plane RMSE: 3.20°-15.66°; frontal plane RMSE: 2.12°-9.14°; transverse plane RMSE: 3.160°-56.61°), followed by the IMU system (sagittal plane RMSE: 8.11°-28.37°; frontal plane RMSE: 3.26°-16.98°; transverse plane RMSE: 5.08°-116.75°), and lastly the RGBD system (sagittal plane bias: 0.55°-129.48°; frontal plane bias: 1.35°-52.06°).
Markerless motion capture and IMUs have moderate validity for joint kinematics, whereas the RGBD system did not have adequate validity. Markerless systems have lower data processing time, require moderate technical expertise, but have high data storage size. IMUs are easier to use, can collect data in any location, but require participant set-up. Overall, individuals using motion capture should consider the specific movements, testing locations, and technical expertise available before selecting a system.
运动捕捉技术正在迅速发展，为研究人员、临床医生和教练提供了更多获取生物力学数据的途径。无标记运动捕捉和惯性测量单元（IMU）是不断发展的生物力学工具，在广泛应用于实际场景之前，需要对动态运动进行验证。本研究评估了无标记运动捕捉、IMU以及红、绿、蓝和深度（RGBD）相机系统与基于标记的运动捕捉在反向跳跃、过头深蹲、弓步和带切入动作的跑步过程中的有效性。
招募了30名成年人参与本研究（性别：18名女性，12名男性；年龄：25.4±8.6岁；身高：1.71±0.08米；体重：71.6±11.5千克）。使用四种运动捕捉技术（即基于标记的Vicon、无标记的Theia/Optitrack、IMU的APDM Opals和RGBD相机的Vald HumanTrak）同时收集数据。使用偏差、均方根误差（RMSE）、精度、最大绝对误差和组内相关系数评估上下身关节角度的系统有效性。对系统可用性进行描述性分析。
总体而言，无标记运动捕捉的有效性最高（矢状面RMSE：3.20°-15.66°；额状面RMSE：2.12°-9.14°；横断面RMSE：3.160°-56.61°），其次是IMU系统（矢状面RMSE：8.11°-28.37°；额状面RMSE：3.26°-16.98°；横断面RMSE：5.08°-116.75°），最后是RGBD系统（矢状面偏差：0.55°-129.48°；额状面偏差：1.35°-52.06°）。
无标记运动捕捉和IMU对关节运动学具有中等有效性，而RGBD系统的有效性不足。无标记系统的数据处理时间较短，需要一定的技术专业知识，但数据存储量较大。IMU更易于使用，可以在任何位置收集数据，但需要参与者进行设置。总体而言，使用运动捕捉的个人在选择系统之前应考虑特定的运动、测试地点和可用的技术专业知识。
