
arXiv: 2411.14992
Marker-based Optical Motion Capture (OMC) paired with biomechanical modeling is currently considered the most precise and accurate method for measuring human movement kinematics. However, combining differentiable biomechanical modeling with Markerless Motion Capture (MMC) offers a promising approach to motion capture in clinical settings, requiring only minimal equipment, such as synchronized webcams, and minimal effort for data collection. This study compares key kinematic outcomes from biomechanically modeled MMC and OMC data in 15 stroke patients performing the drinking task, a functional task recommended for assessing upper limb movement quality. We observed a high level of agreement in kinematic trajectories between MMC and OMC, as indicated by high correlations (median r above 0.95 for the majority of kinematic trajectories) and median RMSE values ranging from 2-5 degrees for joint angles, 0.04 m/s for end-effector velocity, and 6 mm for trunk displacement. Trial-to-trial biases between OMC and MMC were consistent within participant sessions, with interquartile ranges of bias around 1-3 degrees for joint angles, 0.01 m/s in end-effector velocity, and approximately 3mm for trunk displacement. Our findings indicate that our MMC for arm tracking is approaching the accuracy of marker-based methods, supporting its potential for use in clinical settings. MMC could provide valuable insights into movement rehabilitation in stroke patients, potentially enhancing the effectiveness of rehabilitation strategies.
7 pages, 4 figures, 3 tables, RehabWeek 2025 ICORR, first 3 authors are shared-first and last two authors are shared last
FOS: Computer and information sciences, J.3, Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (cs.CV), Computer Science - Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition
FOS: Computer and information sciences, J.3, Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (cs.CV), Computer Science - Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 1 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
