ArticleJournal of biomechanics2021
Optical motion capture accuracy is task-dependent in assessing wrist motion.
Article in Journal of biomechanics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Optical Motion Capture Systems for 3D Kinematic Analysis in Patients with Shoulder Disorders.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Pooled it
- Multi-Planar Cervical Motion Dataset: IMU Measurements and Goniometer.Scientific data · 2025Article
- Intelligent Assessment Techniques for Abnormal Movement Patterns in Neurological Disorders: Applications and Advances.Behavioural neurology · 2025Review
- In Vivo Measurement of Wrist Movements during the Dart-Throwing Motion Using Inertial Measurement Units.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Optical motion capture (OMC) systems are commonly used to capture in-vivo three-dimensional joint kinematics. However, the skin-based markers may not reflect the underlying bone movement, a source of error known as soft tissue artifact (STA). This study examined STA during wrist motion by evaluating the agreement between OMC and biplanar videoradiography (BVR). Nine subjects completed 7 different wrist motion tasks: doorknob rotation to capture supination and pronation, radial-ulnar deviation, flexion-extension, circumduction, hammering, and pitcher pouring. BVR and OMC captured the motion simultaneously. Wrist kinematics were quantified using helical motion parameters of rotation and translation, and Bland-Altman analysis quantified the mean difference (bias) and 95% limit of agreement (LOA). The rotational bias of doorknob pronation, a median bias of -4.9°, was significantly larger than the flexion-extension (0.7°, p < 0.05) and radial-ulnar deviation (1.8°, p < 0.01) tasks. The rotational LOA range was significantly smaller in the flexion-extension task (5.9°) compared to pitcher (11.6°, p < 0.05) and doorknob pronation (17.9°, p < 0.05) tasks. The translation bias did not differ between tasks. The translation LOA range was significantly larger in circumduction (9.8°) compared to the radial-ulnar deviation (6.3°, p < 0.05) and pitcher (3.4°, p < 0.05) tasks. While OMC technology has a wide-range of successful applications, we demonstrated it has relatively poor agreement with BVR in tracking wrist motion, and that the agreement depends on the nature and direction of wrist motion.
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.