Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
, 14 (11), e0224182
eCollection

Moving System With Action Sport Cameras: 3D Kinematics of the Walking and Running in a Large Volume

Affiliations

Moving System With Action Sport Cameras: 3D Kinematics of the Walking and Running in a Large Volume

Gustavo R D Bernardina et al. PLoS One.

Abstract

Traditionally, motion analysis in clinical laboratories using optoelectronic systems (MOCAP) is performed in acquisition volumes of limited size. Given the complexity and cost of MOCAP in larger volumes, action sports cameras (ASC) represent an alternative approach in which the cameras move along with the subject during the movement task. Thus, this study aims to compare ASC against a traditional MOCAP in the perspective of reconstructing walking and running movements in large spatial volumes, which extend over the common laboratory setup. The two systems, consisting of four cameras each, were closely mounted on a custom carrying structure endowed with wheels. Two different acquisition setups, namely steady and moving conditions, were taken into account. A devoted calibration procedure, using the same protocol for the two systems, enabled the reconstruction of surface markers, placed on voluntary subjects, during the two acquisition setups. The comparison was quantitatively expressed in terms of three-dimensional (3D) marker reconstruction and kinematic computation quality. The quality of the marker reconstruction quality was quantified by means of the mean absolute error (MAE) of inter-marker distance and two-stick angle. The kinematic computation quality was quantified by means of the measure of the knee angle reconstruction during walking and running trials. In order to evaluate the camera system and moving camera effects, we used a Wilcoxon rank sum test and a Kruskal Wallis test (post-hoc Tukey), respectively. The Spearman correlation coefficient (ρ) and the Wilcoxon rank sum test were applied to compare the kinematic data obtained by the two camera systems. We found small ASC MAE values (< 2.6mm and 1.3°), but they were significantly bigger than the MOCAP (< 0.7mm and 0.6°). However, for the human movement no significant differences were found between kinematic variables in walking and running acquisitions (p>0.05), and the motion patterns of the right-left knee angles between both systems were very similar (ρ>0.90, p<0.05). These results highlighted the promising results of a system that uses ASC based on the procedure of mobile cameras to follow the movement of the subject, allowing a less constrained movement in the direction in which the structure moves, compared to the traditional laboratory setup.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1. Cameras position.
(A) Cameras position in the setup #1 (Reference). (B) Cameras position in the setup #2 (Steady structure) and setup #3 (Mobile structure, that involved the movement of the structure along a straight-line trajectory of 40 meters).
Fig 2
Fig 2. Mean curve of the angular variation, of the right and left knee, of 17 stride cycles in one walking trial (40 meters).
Vicon (dashed line) and GoPro (continuous line).
Fig 3
Fig 3. Mean curve of the angular variation, of the right and left knee, of 14 stride cycles in one running trial (40 meters).
Vicon (dashed line) and GoPro (continuous line).

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Bernardina GRD, Monnet T, Pinto HT, Barros RML, Cerveri P, Silvatti AP. Are action sport cameras accurate enough for 3d motion analysis? A comparison with a commercial motion capture system. J Appl Biomech. 2018; 0(0): 1–17. 10.1123/jab.2017-0101 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Pietraszewski B, Winiarski S, Jaroszczuk S. Three-dimensional human gait pattern–reference data for normal men. Acta of Bioeng Biomech. 2012; 14(3). 10.5277/abb120302 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Mirek E, Kubica JL, Szymura J, Pasiut S, Rudzinska M, Chwala W. Assessment of gait therapy effectiveness in patients with parkinson’s disease on the basis of three-dimensional movement analysis. Front Neurol. 2016; 7(102). 10.3389/fneur.2016.00102 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Riley PO, Paolini G, Croce UD, Paylo KW, Kerrigan DC. A kinematic and kinetic comparison of over ground and treamill walking in healthy subjects. Gait Posture. 2007; 26(1): 17–24. 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2006.07.003 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bini RR, Diefenthaeler F. Kinetics and kinematics analysis of incremental cycling to exhaustion. Sport Biomech. 2010; 9(4): 223–35. 10.1080/14763141.2010.540672 - DOI - PubMed

Grant support

APS received funding from Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (National Counsel of Technological and Scientific Development) (www.cnpq.br) through Award Numbers 481391/2013-4. GRDB and this study received funding from Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (Brazilian Federal Agency for Support and Evaluation of Graduation Education) (www.capes.gov.br) through Award Numbers 2011/10-7 and 08/2014. APS and GRDB received funding from Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa de Minas Gerais (Minas Gerais Research Foundation) (www.fapemig.br) through Award Number PEE-00596-14 and 12040/2017. The funders had no role in study /design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Feedback