Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33430149›Full record

ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2021

Evaluation of the Azure Kinect and Its Comparison to Kinect V1 and Kinect V2.

Michal Tölgyessy, Martin Dekan, Ľuboš Chovanec, Peter Hubinský

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 64 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
64citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

64 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Video-Based Data-Driven Models for Diagnosing Movement Disorders: Review and Future Directions.Movement disorders : official journal of the Movement Disorder Society · 2025
    Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

4 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Michal TölgyessyInstitute of Robotics and Cybernetics, Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Information Technology STU in Bratislava, Ilkovičova 3, 812 19 Bratislava, Slovakia.ORCID 0000-0003-1697-1197
Martin DekanInstitute of Robotics and Cybernetics, Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Information Technology STU in Bratislava, Ilkovičova 3, 812 19 Bratislava, Slovakia.ORCID 0000-0003-2372-7467
Ľuboš ChovanecInstitute of Robotics and Cybernetics, Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Information Technology STU in Bratislava, Ilkovičova 3, 812 19 Bratislava, Slovakia.ORCID 0000-0003-2917-6950
Peter HubinskýInstitute of Robotics and Cybernetics, Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Information Technology STU in Bratislava, Ilkovičova 3, 812 19 Bratislava, Slovakia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Azure Kinect is the successor of Kinect v1 and Kinect v2. In this paper we perform brief data analysis and comparison of all Kinect versions with focus on precision (repeatability) and various aspects of noise of these three sensors. Then we thoroughly evaluate the new Azure Kinect; namely its warm-up time, precision (and sources of its variability), accuracy (thoroughly, using a robotic arm), reflectivity (using 18 different materials), and the multipath and flying pixel phenomenon. Furthermore, we validate its performance in both indoor and outdoor environments, including direct and indirect sun conditions. We conclude with a discussion on its improvements in the context of the evolution of the Kinect sensor. It was shown that it is crucial to choose well designed experiments to measure accuracy, since the RGB and depth camera are not aligned. Our measurements confirm the officially stated values, namely standard deviation ≤17 mm, and distance error <11 mm in up to 3.5 meters distance from the sensor in all four supported modes. The device, however, has to be warmed up for at least 40-50 min to give stable results. Due to the time-of-flight technology, the Azure Kinect cannot be reliably used in direct sunlight. Therefore, it is convenient mostly for indoor applications.

Indexed as

3D scanningAzure Kinectdepth imaginggesture recognitionHRI (human–robot interaction)Kinectmappingobject recognitionroboticsSLAM (simultaneous localization and mapping)

Identifiers

PMID33430149
PMCPMC7827245

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.