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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Pöhlmann, Stefanie T. L., Harkness, Elaine F., Taylor, Christopher J., Astley, Susan M.
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