The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.
Estimating soft tissue artifact of the thigh in high knee flexion tasks using optical motion Capture: Implications for marker cluster placement
Abstract
Soft tissue artifact in motion capture is widely accepted as a significant source of error in kinematic and kinetic measurements. Non-invasive methods of estimating soft tissue artifact, those requiring only motion capture, provide a feasible method to evaluate marker placement on a segment and enable recommendations for marker configurations which can minimize soft tissue artifact. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of thigh marker cluster location on soft tissue artifact during high knee flexion (>120 deg) as unique deformation of soft tissue occurs in this range (e.g. thigh-calf contact). Motion of the pelvis and lower limbs were recorded during squatting and kneeling in fifty participants. Six rigid marker clusters were affixed to the skin on the anterior, lateral, and anterolateral aspect, at the distal and middle third of the thighs. To estimate soft tissue artifact, the functional hip joint center was reconstructed relative to the pelvis cluster and each of the six thigh clusters throughout motion. The difference in the position of these two points was input into Bland-Altman analyses and compared between the thigh clusters. Across the tasks, the total mean difference ranged from 2.81 to 8.95 cm while the lower and upper limits of agreement ranged from -0.79 to 2.54 cm and 5.04 to 17.65 cm, respectively. Using this non-invasive method, the mid-anterolateral cluster was least susceptible to soft tissue artifact and thus would be recommended, while the lateral clusters were most susceptible and should avoided in high knee flexion and similar tasks.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The predictable widening of error thresholds at P2-particularly for hip flexion-likely reflects increased tissue tension and potential displacement of skin-mounted markers at maximal joint range.
“the predictable widening of error thresholds observed at P2—particularly for hip flexion—likely reflects increased tissue tension and potential displacement of skin-mounted markers at maximal joint range [49,50].”
From Intra-Rater and Test–Retest Reliability of Kinovea for the Kinematic Analysis of Squatting in Healthy Active Women (2026) · cites this paper as [49]
Citations
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 55 · Cited by 10
Metadata
- Authors
- Buchman-Pearle, J. M., & Acker, S. M.
- Affiliations
- University of Waterloo (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Acker, Stacey M.
- Venue
- Journal of Biomechanics
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2021-10
- Volume
- 127
- Pages
- 110659
- ISSN
- 0021-9290 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3187977304
- Cited by
- 10
- References
- 55
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2
- FWCI
- 0.46
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of Biomechanics (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (04109)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Lower Extremity Biomechanics and Pathologies
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Knee injuries and reconstruction techniques
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Muscle activation and electromyography studies
- Keywords
- soft tissue artifacts, marker placement, squatting, kneeling, optical motion capture
- MeSH terms
- Biomechanical Phenomena, Humans, Knee Joint, Leg, Thigh, Range of Motion, Articular, Artifacts
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review