Cited by 210Human Motion and AnimationLower Extremity Biomechanics and PathologiesHuman Pose and Action Recognition

Comparison of Markerless and Marker-Based Motion Capture Technologies through Simultaneous Data Collection during Gait: Proof of Concept

Open access
Ceseracciu, Elena, Sawacha, Zimi, Cobelli, Claudio·2014·PLoS ONE

Abstract

During the last decade markerless motion capture techniques have gained an increasing interest in the biomechanics community. In the clinical field, however, the application of markerless techniques is still debated. This is mainly due to a limited number of papers dedicated to the comparison with the state of the art of marker based motion capture, in term of repeatability of the three dimensional joints' kinematics. In the present work the application of markerless technique to data acquired with a marker-based system was investigated. All videos and external data were recorded with the same motion capture system and included the possibility to use markerless and marker-based methods simultaneously. Three dimensional markerless joint kinematics was estimated and compared with the one determined with traditional marker based systems, through the evaluation of root mean square distance between joint rotations. In order to compare the performance of markerless and marker-based systems in terms of clinically relevant joint angles estimation, the same anatomical frames of reference were defined for both systems. Differences in calibration and synchronization of the cameras were excluded by applying the same wand calibration and lens distortion correction to both techniques. Best results were achieved for knee flexion-extension angle, with an average root mean square distance of 11.75 deg, corresponding to 18.35% of the range of motion. Sagittal plane kinematics was estimated better than on the other planes also for hip and ankle (root mean square distance of 17.62 deg e.g. 44.66%, and 7.17 deg e.g. 33.12%), meanwhile estimates for hip joint were the most incorrect. This technique enables users of markerless technology to compare differences with marker-based in order to define the degree of applicability of markerless technique.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pone.0087640

Cites

26 of 26 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [10]Corazza S, Mündermann L, Andriacchi TP (2005) Model-free markerless motion capture through visual hull and laplacian eigenmaps. Proceedings of Summer Bioengineering Conference ASME

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ceseracciu, E., Sawacha, Z., & Cobelli, C.
Affiliations
University of Padua (IT)
Corresponding author
Cobelli, Claudio
Venue
PLoS ONE
Published
2014-03-04
Volume
9
Issue
3
Pages
e87640
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1965998437
Cited by
210
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 2
FWCI
11.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • Padua Research Archive (University of Padova) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Control and Systems Engineering › Human Motion and Animation
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Lower Extremity Biomechanics and Pathologies
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Human Pose and Action Recognition
Keywords
markerless motion capture, marker-based motion capture, gait analysis, three-dimensional joint kinematics, knee flexion and extension, hip kinematics, ankle kinematics, sagittal plane
MeSH terms
Calibration, Data Collection, Gait, Humans, Motion, Photography, Imaging, Three-Dimensional

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