ArticlePloS one2018
Evaluation of the Leap Motion Controller during the performance of visually-guided upper limb movements.
Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 66 citations in OpenAlex.
- Leap Motion Controller Video Game-Based Therapy for Upper Extremity Motor Recovery in Patients with Central Nervous System Diseases. A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Pooled it
- Use of low-cost virtual reality in the treatment of the upper extremity in chronic stroke: a randomized clinical trial.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2024Trial
- The size and behavior of virtual objects have influence on functional exercise and motivation of persons with multiple sclerosis: a randomized study.Scientific reports · 2022Trial
- Feasibility and Efficacy of a Virtual Reality Game-Based Upper Extremity Motor Function Rehabilitation Therapy in Patients with Chronic Stroke: A Pilot Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Trial
- Evaluation of a new clinical test protocol for pointing acuity - An initial validity study.PloS one · 2026Article
- Eye-hand coordination during visually-guided reaching in children with monocular deprivation amblyopia.Vision research · 2025Article
- Kinematic Assessment of Fine Motor Skills in Children: Comparison of a Kinematic Approach and a Standardized Test.Vision (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Accuracy of Video-Based Hand Tracking for People With Upper-Body Disabilities.IEEE transactions on neural systems and rehabilitation engineering : a publication of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society · 2024Article
- Biomechanics beyond the lab: Remote technology for osteoarthritis patient data-A scoping review.Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences · 2022Article
- Article
- Assessment of cognitive biases in Augmented Reality: Beyond eye tracking.Journal of eye movement research · 2022Article
- Reach Kinematics During Binocular Viewing in 7- to 12-Year-Old Children With Strabismus.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2021Article
- Comparison of the Performance of the Leap Motion ControllerSensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Hand Motion Capture from a 3D Leap Motion Controller for a Musculoskeletal Dynamic Simulation.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- An Innovative Approach for Online Neuroanatomy and Neurorrehabilitation Teaching Based on 3D Virtual Anatomical Models Using Leap Motion Controller During COVID-19 Pandemic.Frontiers in psychology · 2021Article
- Reaching to inhibit a prepotent response: A wearable 3-axis accelerometer kinematic analysis.PloS one · 2021Article
- Restricted Kinematics in Children With Autism in the Execution of Complex Oscillatory Arm Movements.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2021Article
- Hands Ahead in Mind and Motion: Active Inference in Peripersonal Hand Space.Vision (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019Article
- Article
- A Self-Managed System for Automated Assessment of UPDRS Upper Limb Tasks in Parkinson's Disease.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Kinematic analysis of upper limb reaching provides insight into the central nervous system control of movements. Until recently, kinematic examination of motor control has been limited to studies conducted in traditional research laboratories because motion capture equipment used for data collection is not easily portable and expensive. A recently developed markerless system, the Leap Motion Controller (LMC), is a portable and inexpensive tracking device that allows recording of 3D hand and finger position. The main goal of this study was to assess the concurrent reliability and validity of the LMC as compared to the Optotrak, a criterion-standard motion capture system, for measures of temporal accuracy and peak velocity during the performance of upper limb, visually-guided movements. In experiment 1, 14 participants executed aiming movements to visual targets presented on a computer monitor. Bland-Altman analysis was conducted to assess the validity and limits of agreement for measures of temporal accuracy (movement time, duration of deceleration interval), peak velocity, and spatial accuracy (endpoint accuracy). In addition, a one-sample t-test was used to test the hypothesis that the error difference between measures obtained from Optotrak and LMC is zero. In experiment 2, 15 participants performed a Fitts' type aiming task in order to assess whether the LMC is capable of assessing a well-known speed-accuracy trade-off relationship. Experiment 3 assessed the temporal coordination pattern during the performance of a sequence consisting of a reaching, grasping, and placement task in 15 participants. Results from the t-test showed that the error difference in temporal measures was significantly different from zero. Based on the results from the 3 experiments, the average temporal error in movement time was 40±44 ms, and the error in peak velocity was 0.024±0.103 m/s. The limits of agreement between the LMC and Optotrak for spatial accuracy measures ranged between 2-5 cm. Although the LMC system is a low-cost, highly portable system, which could facilitate collection of kinematic data outside of the traditional laboratory settings, the temporal and spatial errors may limit the use of the device in some settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.