TY - JOUR
T1 - The accuracy of markerless motion capture combined with computer vision techniques for measuring running kinematics
AU - Van Hooren, B.
AU - Pecasse, N.
AU - Meijer, K.
AU - Essers, J.M.N.
N1 - Funding Information:
BVH was funded by an Eurostars grant (ID 12912) awarded by Eureka. We would like to thank Julia Negasse for her assistance with data collection and Freek van Haaren for his assistance with the OpenPose data analyses.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2023 The Authors. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science In Sports published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
PY - 2023/6
Y1 - 2023/6
N2 - BackgroundMarkerless motion capture based on low-cost 2-D video analysis in combination with computer vision techniques has the potential to provide accurate analysis of running technique in both a research and clinical setting. However, the accuracy of markerless motion capture for assessing running kinematics compared to a gold-standard approach remains largely unexplored. ObjectiveHere, we investigate the accuracy of custom-trained (DeepLabCut) and existing (OpenPose) computer vision techniques for assessing sagittal-plane hip, knee, and ankle running kinematics at speeds of 2.78 and 3.33 m s(-1) as compared to gold-standard marker-based motion capture. MethodsDifferences between the markerless and marker-based approaches were assessed using statistical parameter mapping and expressed as root mean squared errors (RMSEs). ResultsAfter temporal alignment and offset removal, both DeepLabCut and OpenPose showed no significant differences with the marker-based approach at 2.78 m s(-1), but some significant differences remained at 3.33 m s(-1). At 2.78 m s(-1), RMSEs were 5.07, 7.91, and 5.60, and 5.92, 7.81, and 5.66 degrees for the hip, knee, and ankle for DeepLabCut and OpenPose, respectively. At 3.33 m s(-1), RMSEs were 7.40, 10.9, 8.01, and 4.95, 7.45, and 5.76 for the hip, knee, and ankle for DeepLabCut and OpenPose, respectively. ConclusionThe differences between OpenPose and the marker-based method were in line with or smaller than reported between other kinematic analysis methods and marker-based methods, while these differences were larger for DeepLabCut. Since the accuracy differed between individuals, OpenPose may be most useful to facilitate large-scale in-field data collection and investigation of group effects rather than individual-level analyses.
AB - BackgroundMarkerless motion capture based on low-cost 2-D video analysis in combination with computer vision techniques has the potential to provide accurate analysis of running technique in both a research and clinical setting. However, the accuracy of markerless motion capture for assessing running kinematics compared to a gold-standard approach remains largely unexplored. ObjectiveHere, we investigate the accuracy of custom-trained (DeepLabCut) and existing (OpenPose) computer vision techniques for assessing sagittal-plane hip, knee, and ankle running kinematics at speeds of 2.78 and 3.33 m s(-1) as compared to gold-standard marker-based motion capture. MethodsDifferences between the markerless and marker-based approaches were assessed using statistical parameter mapping and expressed as root mean squared errors (RMSEs). ResultsAfter temporal alignment and offset removal, both DeepLabCut and OpenPose showed no significant differences with the marker-based approach at 2.78 m s(-1), but some significant differences remained at 3.33 m s(-1). At 2.78 m s(-1), RMSEs were 5.07, 7.91, and 5.60, and 5.92, 7.81, and 5.66 degrees for the hip, knee, and ankle for DeepLabCut and OpenPose, respectively. At 3.33 m s(-1), RMSEs were 7.40, 10.9, 8.01, and 4.95, 7.45, and 5.76 for the hip, knee, and ankle for DeepLabCut and OpenPose, respectively. ConclusionThe differences between OpenPose and the marker-based method were in line with or smaller than reported between other kinematic analysis methods and marker-based methods, while these differences were larger for DeepLabCut. Since the accuracy differed between individuals, OpenPose may be most useful to facilitate large-scale in-field data collection and investigation of group effects rather than individual-level analyses.
KW - artificial intelligence
KW - deep learning
KW - DeepLabCut
KW - motion analysis
KW - OpenPose
KW - statistical parameter mapping
KW - validity
KW - PATELLOFEMORAL JOINT STRESS
KW - RELIABILITY
KW - FEMALES
KW - ECONOMY
KW - MUSCLE
U2 - 10.1111/sms.14319
DO - 10.1111/sms.14319
M3 - Article
C2 - 36680411
SN - 0905-7188
VL - 33
SP - 966
EP - 978
JO - Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports
JF - Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports
IS - 6
ER -