Cargando…
Evaluation of Kinect 3D Sensor for Healthcare Imaging
Microsoft Kinect is a three-dimensional (3D) sensor originally designed for gaming that has received growing interest as a cost-effective and safe device for healthcare imaging. Recent applications of Kinect in health monitoring, screening, rehabilitation, assistance systems, and intervention suppor...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
2016
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5216096/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28111534 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40846-016-0184-2 |
_version_ | 1782491862795288576 |
---|---|
author | Pöhlmann, Stefanie T. L. Harkness, Elaine F. Taylor, Christopher J. Astley, Susan M. |
author_facet | Pöhlmann, Stefanie T. L. Harkness, Elaine F. Taylor, Christopher J. Astley, Susan M. |
author_sort | Pöhlmann, Stefanie T. L. |
collection | PubMed |
description | Microsoft Kinect is a three-dimensional (3D) sensor originally designed for gaming that has received growing interest as a cost-effective and safe device for healthcare imaging. Recent applications of Kinect in health monitoring, screening, rehabilitation, assistance systems, and intervention support are reviewed here. The suitability of available technologies for healthcare imaging applications is assessed. The performance of Kinect I, based on structured light technology, is compared with that of the more recent Kinect II, which uses time-of-flight measurement, under conditions relevant to healthcare applications. The accuracy, precision, and resolution of 3D images generated with Kinect I and Kinect II are evaluated using flat cardboard models representing different skin colors (pale, medium, and dark) at distances ranging from 0.5 to 1.2 m and measurement angles of up to 75°. Both sensors demonstrated high accuracy (majority of measurements <2 mm) and precision (mean point to plane error <2 mm) at an average resolution of at least 390 points per cm(2). Kinect I is capable of imaging at shorter measurement distances, but Kinect II enables structures angled at over 60° to be evaluated. Kinect II showed significantly higher precision and Kinect I showed significantly higher resolution (both p < 0.001). The choice of object color can influence measurement range and precision. Although Kinect is not a medical imaging device, both sensor generations show performance adequate for a range of healthcare imaging applications. Kinect I is more appropriate for short-range imaging and Kinect II is more appropriate for imaging highly curved surfaces such as the face or breast. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5216096 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2016 |
publisher | Springer Berlin Heidelberg |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-52160962017-01-18 Evaluation of Kinect 3D Sensor for Healthcare Imaging Pöhlmann, Stefanie T. L. Harkness, Elaine F. Taylor, Christopher J. Astley, Susan M. J Med Biol Eng Original Article Microsoft Kinect is a three-dimensional (3D) sensor originally designed for gaming that has received growing interest as a cost-effective and safe device for healthcare imaging. Recent applications of Kinect in health monitoring, screening, rehabilitation, assistance systems, and intervention support are reviewed here. The suitability of available technologies for healthcare imaging applications is assessed. The performance of Kinect I, based on structured light technology, is compared with that of the more recent Kinect II, which uses time-of-flight measurement, under conditions relevant to healthcare applications. The accuracy, precision, and resolution of 3D images generated with Kinect I and Kinect II are evaluated using flat cardboard models representing different skin colors (pale, medium, and dark) at distances ranging from 0.5 to 1.2 m and measurement angles of up to 75°. Both sensors demonstrated high accuracy (majority of measurements <2 mm) and precision (mean point to plane error <2 mm) at an average resolution of at least 390 points per cm(2). Kinect I is capable of imaging at shorter measurement distances, but Kinect II enables structures angled at over 60° to be evaluated. Kinect II showed significantly higher precision and Kinect I showed significantly higher resolution (both p < 0.001). The choice of object color can influence measurement range and precision. Although Kinect is not a medical imaging device, both sensor generations show performance adequate for a range of healthcare imaging applications. Kinect I is more appropriate for short-range imaging and Kinect II is more appropriate for imaging highly curved surfaces such as the face or breast. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2016-12-09 2016 /pmc/articles/PMC5216096/ /pubmed/28111534 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40846-016-0184-2 Text en © The Author(s) 2016 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. |
spellingShingle | Original Article Pöhlmann, Stefanie T. L. Harkness, Elaine F. Taylor, Christopher J. Astley, Susan M. Evaluation of Kinect 3D Sensor for Healthcare Imaging |
title | Evaluation of Kinect 3D Sensor for Healthcare Imaging |
title_full | Evaluation of Kinect 3D Sensor for Healthcare Imaging |
title_fullStr | Evaluation of Kinect 3D Sensor for Healthcare Imaging |
title_full_unstemmed | Evaluation of Kinect 3D Sensor for Healthcare Imaging |
title_short | Evaluation of Kinect 3D Sensor for Healthcare Imaging |
title_sort | evaluation of kinect 3d sensor for healthcare imaging |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5216096/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28111534 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40846-016-0184-2 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT pohlmannstefanietl evaluationofkinect3dsensorforhealthcareimaging AT harknesselainef evaluationofkinect3dsensorforhealthcareimaging AT taylorchristopherj evaluationofkinect3dsensorforhealthcareimaging AT astleysusanm evaluationofkinect3dsensorforhealthcareimaging |