Markerless motion capture: What clinician-scientists need to know right now

A Step Forward Understanding Directional Limitations in Markerless Smartphone-Based Gait Analysis: A Pilot Study

The progress in markerless technologies is providing clinicians with tools to shorten the time of assessment rapidly, but raises questions about the potential trade-off in accuracy compared to traditional marker-based systems. This study evaluated the OpenCap system against a traditional marker-based system-Vicon. Our focus was on its performance in capturing walking both toward and away from two iPhone cameras in the same setting, which allowed capturing the Timed Up and Go (TUG) test. The performance of the OpenCap system was compared to that of a standard marker-based system by comparing spatial-temporal and kinematic parameters in 10 participants. The study focused on identifying potential discrepancies in accuracy and comparing results using correlation analysis. Case examples further explored our results. The OpenCap system demonstrated good accuracy in spatial-temporal parameters but faced challenges in accurately capturing kinematic parameters, especially in the walking direction facing away from the cameras. Notably, the two walking directions observed significant differences in pelvic obliquity, hip abduction, and ankle flexion. Our findings suggest areas for improvement in markerless technologies, highlighting their potential in clinical settings.

Vertical Center-of-Mass Braking and Motor Performance during Gait Initiation in Young Healthy Adults, Elderly Healthy Adults, and Patients with Parkinson's Disease: A Comparison of Force-Plate and Markerless Motion Capture Systems

BACKGROUND

This study tested the agreement between a markerless motion capture system and force-plate system ("gold standard") to quantify stability control and motor performance during gait initiation.

METHODS

Healthy adults (young and elderly) and patients with Parkinson's disease performed gait initiation series at spontaneous and maximal velocity on a system of two force-plates placed in series while being filmed by a markerless motion capture system. Signals from both systems were used to compute the peak of forward center-of-mass velocity (indicator of motor performance) and the braking index (indicator of stability control).

RESULTS

Descriptive statistics indicated that both systems detected between-group differences and velocity effects similarly, while a Bland-Altman plot analysis showed that mean biases of both biomechanical indicators were virtually zero in all groups and conditions. Bayes factor 01 indicated strong (braking index) and moderate (motor performance) evidence that both systems provided equivalent values. However, a trial-by-trial analysis of Bland-Altman plots revealed the possibility of differences >10% between the two systems.

CONCLUSION

Although non-negligible differences do occur, a markerless motion capture system appears to be as efficient as a force-plate system in detecting Parkinson's disease and velocity condition effects on the braking index and motor performance.

Markerless motion capture estimates of lower extremity kinematics and kinetics are comparable to marker-based across 8 movements

Motion analysis is essential for assessing in-vivo human biomechanics. Marker-based motion capture is the standard to analyze human motion, but the inherent inaccuracy and practical challenges limit its utility in large-scale and real-world applications. Markerless motion capture has shown promise to overcome these practical barriers. However, its fidelity in quantifying joint kinematics and kinetics has not been verified across multiple common human movements. In this study, we concurrently captured marker-based and markerless motion data on 10 healthy study participants performing 8 daily living and exercise movements. We calculated the correlation (Rxy) and root-mean-square difference (RMSD) between markerless and marker-based estimates of ankle dorsi-plantarflexion, knee flexion, and three-dimensional hip kinematics (angles) and kinetics (moments) during each movement. Estimates from markerless motion capture matched closely with marker-based in ankle and knee joint angles (Rxy ≥ 0.877, RMSD ≤ 5.9°) and moments (Rxy ≥ 0.934, RMSD ≤ 2.66 % height × weight). High outcome comparability means the practical benefits of markerless motion capture can simplify experiments and facilitate large-scale analyses. Hip angles and moments demonstrated more differences between the two systems (RMSD: 6.7-15.9° and up to 7.15 % height × weight), especially during rapid movements such as running. Markerless motion capture appears to improve the accuracy of hip-related measures, yet more research is needed for validation. We encourage the biomechanics community to continue verifying, validating, and establishing best practices for markerless motion capture, which holds exciting potential to advance collaborative biomechanical research and expand real-world assessments needed for clinical translation.

Markerless motion capture estimates of lower extremity kinematics and kinetics are comparable to marker-based across 8 movements

Motion analysis is essential for assessing in-vivo human biomechanics. Marker-based motion capture is the standard to analyze human motion, but the inherent inaccuracy and practical challenges limit its utility in large-scale and real-world applications. Markerless motion capture has shown promise to overcome these practical barriers. However, its fidelity in quantifying joint kinematics and kinetics has not been verified across multiple common human movements. In this study, we concurrently captured marker-based and markerless motion data on 10 healthy subjects performing 8 daily living and exercise movements. We calculated the correlation (R xy ) and root-mean-square difference (RMSD) between markerless and marker-based estimates of ankle dorsi-plantarflexion, knee flexion, and three-dimensional hip kinematics (angles) and kinetics (moments) during each movement. Estimates from markerless motion capture matched closely with marker-based in ankle and knee joint angles (R xy ≥ 0.877, RMSD ≤ 5.9°) and moments (R xy ≥ 0.934, RMSD ≤ 2.66 % height × weight). High outcome comparability means the practical benefits of markerless motion capture can simplify experiments and facilitate large-scale analyses. Hip angles and moments demonstrated more differences between the two systems (RMSD: 6.7° - 15.9° and up to 7.15 % height × weight), especially during rapid movements such as running. Markerless motion capture appears to improve the accuracy of hip-related measures, yet more research is needed for validation. We encourage the biomechanics community to continue verifying, validating, and establishing best practices for markerless motion capture, which holds exciting potential to advance collaborative biomechanical research and expand real-world assessments needed for clinical translation.