Validation of feasibility of two depth sensor-based Microsoft Kinect cameras for human abduction-adduction motion analysis
- 85 Downloads
Kinematic motion analysis using a VICON camera costing about $20,000 and an IMU sensor, valued at about $1,500, are typical. A depth sensor-based Kinect camera, which costs about $200, is easier to use and less expensive than other motion analysis systems. This study assessed the performance of Kinect camera in evaluating kinematic data of a dummy capable of arm abduction-adduction motion to a maximum angle of 60 degrees as well as of seven healthy male adults. Phase difference between the VICON and Kinect cameras at a standing position angle of 0°, 30°, 45°, 60°, and 90° was 6.5%, 6.8%, 10.8%, 6.1% and 5.5%, respectively which values were revealed a significantly smaller phase difference of Kinect camera than the IMU sensor (p=0.027), and showed that Kinect camera was more effective for motion analysis. Statistical analysis of the correlation between the VICON and Kinect cameras yielded a Pearson coefficient of 0.96, 0.96, 0.84, 0.96, and 0.94, and limit of agreement (LoA) score of 95.0%, 96.4%, 94.7%, 96.0%, and 95.8% at the standing position angle of 0°, 30°, 45°, 60°, and 90°, respectively. Two kinect cameras have similar motion tracking performance as the VICON camera system at very little cost.
KeywordsPhase difference Pearson’s coefficient Limit of agreement Abduction-adduction Very little cost
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Muybridge, E., “The Science of the Horse’s Motions,” Scientific American, Vol. 39, pp. 241, 1878.Google Scholar
- 5.Barrow, H. G., Tenenbaum, J. M., Bolles, R. C., and Wolf, H. C., “Parametric Correspondence and Chamfer Matching: Two New Techniques for Image Matching,” DTIC Document, No. 0704-0188, 1977.Google Scholar
- 10.Carstensen, B., Simpson, J., and Gurrin, L. C., “Statistical Models for Assessing Agreement in Method Comparison Studies with Replicate Measurements,” The International Journal of Biostatistics, Vol. 4, No. 1, 2008.Google Scholar
- 11.Zimmermann, L., Ebersohl, J. P., Le Hung, F., Berry, J., Baillieu, F., et al., “Airbag Application: A Microsystem Including a Silicon Capacitive Accelerometer, CMOS Switched Capacitor Electronics and True Self-Test Capability,” Sensors and Actuators A: Physical, Vol. 46, No. 1, pp. 190–195, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 15.Adamo, K. B., Prince, S. A., Tricco, A. C., Connor-Gorber, S., and Tremblay, M., “A Comparison of Indirect Versus Direct Measures for Assessing Physical Activity in the Pediatric Population: A Systematic Review,” International Journal of Pediatric Obesity, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 2–27, 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 16.Jimenez, A. R., Seco, F., Prieto, C., and Guevara, J., “A Comparison of Pedestrian Dead-Reckoning Algorithms using a Low-Cost MEMS IMU,” Proc. of IEEE International Symposium on Intelligent Signal Processing, pp. 37–42, 2009.Google Scholar
- 17.Hol, J. D., Schony, T. B., and Gustafsson, F., “Relative Pose Calibration of a Spherical Camera and an IMU,” Proc. of 7th IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality, pp. 21–24, 2008.Google Scholar
- 18.Jiménez, A. R., Seco, F., Prieto, J. C., and Guevara, J., “Indoor Pedestrian Navigation using an INS/EKF Framework for Yaw Drift Reduction and a Foot-Mounted IMU,” Proc. of 7th Workshop on Positioning Navigation and Communication (WPNC), pp. 135–143, 2010.Google Scholar
- 26.Lange, B., Chang, C.-Y., Suma, E., Newman, B., Rizzo, A. S., and Bolas, M., “Development and Evaluation of Low Cost Game-based Balance Rehabilitation Tool using the Microsoft Kinect Sensor,” Proc. of Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, pp. 1831–1834, 2011.Google Scholar