Shape Analysis of Bicipital Contraction by Means of RGB-D Sensor, Parallel Transport and Trajectory Analysis

Conference paper
Part of the IFMBE Proceedings book series (IFMBE, volume 57)


We present a novel system for the markerless shape analysis of bicipital contraction. The study of the soft tissue deformation due to the biceps muscular activity is achieved by analysing video sequences obtained from a RGB-D sensor and applying geometric morphometrics and parallel transport algorithms. In particular, we tested for differences between genders in soft tissue deformation during isometric contraction. Tests on 20 subjects (10 males, 10 females) in biceps brachii isometric contraction have been performed. The obtained results, in terms of size and shape deformations, are in accordance with biomechanical and physiological studies. The performance of the proposed method is particularly encouraging for its application to elderlies, in the bio-medical investigations as well as in rehabilitation of the upper limb.


Muscular contraction Soft tissue deformation RGB-D sensor Geometric morphometrics Parallel transport 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Cappozzo A, Catani F, Leardini A, Benedetti M G, Della Croce U (1996) Position and orientation in space of bones during movement: experimental artefacts. Clinical biomechanics 11(2):90-100Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kavan L, Collins S, Žára J, O’Sullivan C (2008) Geometric skinning with approximate dual quaternion blending. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 27(4):105Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gibson S F, Mirtich B (1997) A survey of deformable modeling in computer graphics. Technical Report, Mitsubishi Electric Research LaboratoriesGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mohr A, Gleicher M (2003) Building efficient, accurate character skins from examples. In ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 22(3):562-568Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Park S I, Hodgins J K (2008) Data-driven modeling of skin and muscle deformation. In ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 27(3):96Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Leardini A, Chiari L, Della Croce U, Cappozzo A (2005) Human movement analysis using stereophotogrammetry: Part 3. Soft tissue artifact assessment and compensation. Gait posture 21(2):212-225Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Goffredo M, Carli M, Conforto S, Bibbo D, Neri A, D’Alessio T. (2005) Evaluation of Skin and Muscular Deformations in a non-rigid motion analysis. In Medical Imaging International Society for Optics and Photonics 535-541Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Goffredo M, Schmid M, Conforto S, D’Alessio T (2006) A markerless sub-pixel motion estimation technique to reconstruct kinematics and estimate the centre of mass in posturography. Medical engineering physics 28(7):719-726Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Arosha Senanayake S M N, Triloka J, Malik O, Iskandar M (2014) Artificial neural network based gait patterns identification using neuromuscular signals and soft tissue deformation analysis of lower limbs muscles. In Neural Networks (IJCNN) 2014 International Joint Conference on IEEE 3503-3510Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Weenk D, Stevens A G, Koning B H, Beijnum B J F, Hermens H J, Veltink P H (2013) A Feasibility Study in Measuring Soft Tissue Artifacts on the Upper Leg Using Inertial and Magnetic Sensors. In Fourth Dutch Conference on Bio-Medical Engineering, 24-25 January 2013, Egmond aan Zee, The Netherlands 154-155.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Della Croce U (2006) Soft tissue artifacts in human movement analysis. In Proceedings of the IXth International Symposium on the 3D Analysis of Human Movement.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Holden J P, Orsini J A, Siegel K L, Kepple T M, Gerber L H, Stanhope S J (1997) Surface movement errors in shank kinematics and knee kinetics during gait. Gait Posture 5(3):217-227Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schwartz M H, Trost J P, Wervey R A (2004) Measurement and management of errors in quantitative gait data. Gait posture 20(2):196-203Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fuller J, Liu L J, Murphy M C, Mann R W (1997) A comparison of lower-extremity skeletal kinematics measured using skin-and pin- mounted markers. Human Movement Science 16(2):219-242Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dumas R, Camomilla V, Bonci T, Cheze L, Cappozzo A (2015) What portion of the soft tissue artefact requires compensation when estimating joint kinematics? Journal of biomechanical engineering 137(6):064502Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Camomilla V, Bonci T, Dumas R, Chèze L, Cappozzo A (2015) A model of the soft tissue artefact rigid component. Journal of biomechanics 48(10):1752-1759Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Goodpaster B H, Park S W, Harris T B, Kritchevsky S B, Nevitt M, Schwartz A V, Newman A B (2006) The loss of skeletal muscle strength, mass, and quality in older adults: the health, aging and body composition study. The Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences 61(10):1059-1064Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Webster K E, Feller J A (2011) Alterations in joint kinematics during walking following hamstring and patellar tendon anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction surgery. Clinical Biomechanics 26(2):175-180Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ryan A S, Dobrovolny C L, Smith G V, Silver K H, Macko R F (2002) Hemiparetic muscle atrophy and increased intramuscular fat in stroke patients. Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation 83(12):1703-1707Google Scholar
  20. 20.
  21. 21.
    Poppe R (2007) Vision-based human motion analysis: An overview. Computer vision and image understanding 108(1):4-18Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Goffredo M, Schmid M, Conforto S, Carli M, Neri A, Alessio T D (2009) Markerless human motion analysis in Gauss–Laguerre transform domain: An application to sit-to-stand in young and elderly people. Information Technology in Biomedicine IEEE Transactions on 13(2):207-216Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Corazza S, Muendermann L, Chaudhari A M, Demattio T, Cobelli C, Andriacchi T P (2006) A markerless motion capture system to study musculoskeletal biomechanics: visual hull and simulated annealing approach. Annals of biomedical engineering 34(6):1019-1029Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Chang Y J, Chen S F, Huang J D (2011) A Kinect-based system for physical rehabilitation: A pilot study for young adults with motor disabilities. Research in developmental disabilities 32(6):2566-2570Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Goffredo M, Schmid M, Conforto S, D’Alessio T (2013) 3D Reaching in Visual Augmented Reality Using Kinect™: The Perception of Virtual Target. In Converging Clinical and Engineering Research on Neurorehabilitation 711-715Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Clark R A, Pua Y H, Fortin K, Ritchie C, Webster K E, Denehy L, Bryant A L (2012) Validity of the Microsoft Kinect for assessment of postural control. Gait posture 36(3):372-377Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Dutta T (2012) Evaluation of the Kinect™ sensor for 3-D kinematic measurement in the workplace. Applied ergonomics 43(4):645-649Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Castelli A, Paolini G, Cereatti A, Della Croce U (2015) A 2D Markerless Gait Analysis Methodology: Validation on Healthy Subjects. Computational and Mathematical Methods in MedicineGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Obdrzalek S, Kurillo G, Ofli F, Bajcsy R, Seto E, Jimison H, Pavel M (2012) Accuracy and robustness of Kinect pose estimation in the context of coaching of elderly population. In Engineering in medicine and biology society (EMBC), 2012 annual international conference of the IEEE 1188-1193Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Greff K, Brandão A, Krauß S, Stricker D, Clua E (2012) A Comparison between Background Subtraction Algorithms using a Consumer Depth Camera. In VISAPP 1:431-436Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Conforto S, Schmid M, Neri A, D’Alessio T (2006) A neural approach to extract foreground from human movement images. Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine 82(1):73-80Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Xia L, Chen C C, Aggarwal J K (2011) Human detection using depth information by Kinect. In Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops (CVPRW), 2011 IEEE Computer Society Conference on 15-22Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Khoshelham K, Elberink S O (2012) Accuracy and resolution of kinect depth data for indoor mapping applications. Sensors 12(2):1437-1454Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Dryden I L, Mardia KV (1998) Statistical shape analysis. Chichester, West Sussex, UK: John Wiley SonsGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Bookstein F L (1991) Morphometric tools for landmark data. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Le H, Kume A 2000 Detection of shape changes in biological features. Journal of Microscopy 200(2):140-147Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Varano V, Gabriele S, Teresi L, Dryden I, Puddu P, Torromeo C, Piras P (2015) Comparing shape trajectories of biological soft tissues in the size-and-shape space. In biomat 2014 International Symposium on Mathematical and Computational Biology 351-365Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Piras P, Evangelista A, Gabriele S, Nardinocchi P, Teresi L, Torromeo C et al. (2014) 4D-Analysis of Left Ventricular Heart Cycle Using Procrustes Motion Analysis. PLoS ONE 9(1):86896Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Madeo A, Piras P, Re F, Gabriele S, Nardinocchi P, Teresi L, et al. (2015) A New 4D Trajectory-Based Approach Unveils Abnormal LV Revolution Dynamics in Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy. PLoS ONE 10(4):0122376Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Goss C M (1960) Gray’s Anatomy of the Human Body. Academic Medicine, 35(1):90Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EngineeringRoma Tre UniversityRomeItaly
  2. 2.Department of ScienceRoma Tre UniversityRomeItaly
  3. 3.Center for Evolutionary EcologyRomeItaly
  4. 4.Department of Structural and Geotechnical EngineeringSapienza University of RomeRomeItaly
  5. 5.Department of Cardiovascular, Respiratory, Nephrological, Anaesthetic and Geriatric SciencesSapienza University of RomeRomeItaly
  6. 6.Department of ArchitectureRoma Tre UniversityRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations