Cargando…

Estimating anatomically plausible segment orientations using a kinect one sensor

INTRODUCTION: Marker-based motion tracking systems are the golden standard for human motion analysis, however such systems are expensive, non-portable and require long time subject preparation. The Kinect One sensor, being inexpensive, portable and markerless, appears as a reliable and valid alterna...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Matias, Nuno Vaz, Roupa, Ivo, Gonçalves, Sérgio, da Silva, Miguel Tavares, Lopes, Daniel Simões
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Taylor & Francis 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8480564/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07853890.2021.1896569
_version_ 1784576479327158272
author Matias, Nuno Vaz
Roupa, Ivo
Gonçalves, Sérgio
da Silva, Miguel Tavares
Lopes, Daniel Simões
author_facet Matias, Nuno Vaz
Roupa, Ivo
Gonçalves, Sérgio
da Silva, Miguel Tavares
Lopes, Daniel Simões
author_sort Matias, Nuno Vaz
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: Marker-based motion tracking systems are the golden standard for human motion analysis, however such systems are expensive, non-portable and require long time subject preparation. The Kinect One sensor, being inexpensive, portable and markerless, appears as a reliable and valid alternative to the marker-based systems in several situations [1–3]. This sensor acquires depth image data and colour camera data that are processed by a tracking algorithm to estimate the three-dimensional position of twenty-five anatomical joints in real-time [4]. Nevertheless, the internal orientations of each anatomical segment are poorly estimated. The main objective of this work is to study the effectiveness of vector orthogonalization methods to estimate the relative internal orientations of the anatomical body segments using the skeletal data acquired by a Kinect One sensor. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-eight young healthy adults (25 ± 9 yrs old, 170 ± 9 cm height, 61 ± 9 kg weight, 13 women) performed 5 repetitions of ten different elementary movements: shoulder flexion/hyperextension, shoulder abduction/adduction, shoulder transversal abduction/adduction, shoulder medial/lateral rotation, elbow flexion, forearm pronation/supination, hip flexion/hyperextension, hip abduction/adduction, knee flexion and hip medial/lateral rotation. On each repetition, the subject initiated the movement in an adapted pose of the anatomical reference position and once finished returned to the initial position. Data was collected, simultaneously, using a marker-based system (Qualysis − 100 Hz) and a markerless system (Kinect One − 30 Hz). All participants signed consent forms.The biomechanical model used was composed by eleven anatomical segments: the head, the chest, the abdomen and both arms, forearms, thighs and legs. Six different vector orthogonalization methods (Householder, Eberly, Square Plate, Spherical and Projection Matrix) were used to estimate the relative orientations of the anatomical body segments from Kinect One sensor model [5]. Pearson’s correlation coefficient was used to compare the anatomical body segments orientations of all model segments obtained with both systems. RESULTS: The results obtained show that the six techniques implemented present a moderate to high correlation (0.58 − 0.93) between segments longitudinal axis of rotation while for the remaining axes (anterior-posterior and medial-lateral) they show a moderate to negligible correlation (–0.37 to 0.46). Additionally, the performance of each technique varies according the selected movement. For example, the Householder technique presents different correlation values when applied to the following movements, hip flexion (0.84), hip abduction (–0.05), knee flexion (0.78), shoulder flexion (0.36), elbow flexion (0.80) present relevant differences. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Although vector orthogonalization techniques are capable to estimate plausible orientations, the results given the same movement shows significant differences, suggesting that not all vector orthogonalization techniques are appropriate for all movements. Therefore, it is necessary to careful select the best technique for each movement in order to obtain valid results. Finally, it is possible to conclude that Kinect One shows good results for some kinematic variables, nevertheless, it needs to improve the precision on the estimation of the joints’ position and all body segments’ orientation in order to obtain results similar to marker-based systems.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8480564
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Taylor & Francis
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-84805642022-03-03 Estimating anatomically plausible segment orientations using a kinect one sensor Matias, Nuno Vaz Roupa, Ivo Gonçalves, Sérgio da Silva, Miguel Tavares Lopes, Daniel Simões Ann Med Abstract 43 INTRODUCTION: Marker-based motion tracking systems are the golden standard for human motion analysis, however such systems are expensive, non-portable and require long time subject preparation. The Kinect One sensor, being inexpensive, portable and markerless, appears as a reliable and valid alternative to the marker-based systems in several situations [1–3]. This sensor acquires depth image data and colour camera data that are processed by a tracking algorithm to estimate the three-dimensional position of twenty-five anatomical joints in real-time [4]. Nevertheless, the internal orientations of each anatomical segment are poorly estimated. The main objective of this work is to study the effectiveness of vector orthogonalization methods to estimate the relative internal orientations of the anatomical body segments using the skeletal data acquired by a Kinect One sensor. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-eight young healthy adults (25 ± 9 yrs old, 170 ± 9 cm height, 61 ± 9 kg weight, 13 women) performed 5 repetitions of ten different elementary movements: shoulder flexion/hyperextension, shoulder abduction/adduction, shoulder transversal abduction/adduction, shoulder medial/lateral rotation, elbow flexion, forearm pronation/supination, hip flexion/hyperextension, hip abduction/adduction, knee flexion and hip medial/lateral rotation. On each repetition, the subject initiated the movement in an adapted pose of the anatomical reference position and once finished returned to the initial position. Data was collected, simultaneously, using a marker-based system (Qualysis − 100 Hz) and a markerless system (Kinect One − 30 Hz). All participants signed consent forms.The biomechanical model used was composed by eleven anatomical segments: the head, the chest, the abdomen and both arms, forearms, thighs and legs. Six different vector orthogonalization methods (Householder, Eberly, Square Plate, Spherical and Projection Matrix) were used to estimate the relative orientations of the anatomical body segments from Kinect One sensor model [5]. Pearson’s correlation coefficient was used to compare the anatomical body segments orientations of all model segments obtained with both systems. RESULTS: The results obtained show that the six techniques implemented present a moderate to high correlation (0.58 − 0.93) between segments longitudinal axis of rotation while for the remaining axes (anterior-posterior and medial-lateral) they show a moderate to negligible correlation (–0.37 to 0.46). Additionally, the performance of each technique varies according the selected movement. For example, the Householder technique presents different correlation values when applied to the following movements, hip flexion (0.84), hip abduction (–0.05), knee flexion (0.78), shoulder flexion (0.36), elbow flexion (0.80) present relevant differences. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Although vector orthogonalization techniques are capable to estimate plausible orientations, the results given the same movement shows significant differences, suggesting that not all vector orthogonalization techniques are appropriate for all movements. Therefore, it is necessary to careful select the best technique for each movement in order to obtain valid results. Finally, it is possible to conclude that Kinect One shows good results for some kinematic variables, nevertheless, it needs to improve the precision on the estimation of the joints’ position and all body segments’ orientation in order to obtain results similar to marker-based systems. Taylor & Francis 2021-09-28 /pmc/articles/PMC8480564/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07853890.2021.1896569 Text en © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Abstract 43
Matias, Nuno Vaz
Roupa, Ivo
Gonçalves, Sérgio
da Silva, Miguel Tavares
Lopes, Daniel Simões
Estimating anatomically plausible segment orientations using a kinect one sensor
title Estimating anatomically plausible segment orientations using a kinect one sensor
title_full Estimating anatomically plausible segment orientations using a kinect one sensor
title_fullStr Estimating anatomically plausible segment orientations using a kinect one sensor
title_full_unstemmed Estimating anatomically plausible segment orientations using a kinect one sensor
title_short Estimating anatomically plausible segment orientations using a kinect one sensor
title_sort estimating anatomically plausible segment orientations using a kinect one sensor
topic Abstract 43
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8480564/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07853890.2021.1896569
work_keys_str_mv AT matiasnunovaz estimatinganatomicallyplausiblesegmentorientationsusingakinectonesensor
AT roupaivo estimatinganatomicallyplausiblesegmentorientationsusingakinectonesensor
AT goncalvessergio estimatinganatomicallyplausiblesegmentorientationsusingakinectonesensor
AT dasilvamigueltavares estimatinganatomicallyplausiblesegmentorientationsusingakinectonesensor
AT lopesdanielsimoes estimatinganatomicallyplausiblesegmentorientationsusingakinectonesensor