BACKGROUND: Markerless motion capture based on low-cost 2-D video analysis in combination with computer vision techniques has the potential to provide accurate analysis of running technique in both a research and clinical setting. However, the accuracy of markerless motion capture for assessing running kinematics compared to a gold-standard approach remains largely unexplored. OBJECTIVE: as compared to gold-standard marker-based motion capture. METHODS: Differences between the markerless and marker-based approaches were assessed using statistical parameter mapping and expressed as root mean squared errors (RMSEs). RESULTS: , RMSEs were 7.40, 10.9, 8.01, and 4.95, 7.45, and 5.76 for the hip, knee, and ankle for DeepLabCut and OpenPose, respectively. CONCLUSION: The differences between OpenPose and the marker-based method were in line with or smaller than reported between other kinematic analysis methods and marker-based methods, while these differences were larger for DeepLabCut. Since the accuracy differed between individuals, OpenPose may be most useful to facilitate large-scale in-field data collection and investigation of group effects rather than individual-level analyses.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hooren et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: