ArticlePloS one2021
Simple benchmarking method for determining the accuracy of depth cameras in body landmark location estimation: Static upright posture as a measurement example.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To evaluate the postures in ergonomics applications, studies have proposed the use of low-cost, marker-less, and portable depth camera-based motion tracking systems (DCMTSs) as a potential alternative to conventional marker-based motion tracking systems (MMTSs). However, a simple but systematic method for examining the estimation errors of various DCMTSs is lacking. This paper proposes a benchmarking method for assessing the estimation accuracy of depth cameras for full-body landmark location estimation. A novel alignment board was fabricated to align the coordinate systems of the DCMTSs and MMTSs. The data from an MMTS were used as a reference to quantify the error of using a DCMTS to identify target locations in a 3-D space. To demonstrate the proposed method, the full-body landmark location tracking errors were evaluated for a static upright posture using two different DCMTSs. For each landmark, we compared each DCMTS (Kinect system and RealSense system) with an MMTS by calculating the Euclidean distances between symmetrical landmarks. The evaluation trials were performed twice. The agreement between the tracking errors of the two evaluation trials was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). The results indicate that the proposed method can effectively assess the tracking performance of DCMTSs. The average errors (standard deviation) for the Kinect system and RealSense system were 2.80 (1.03) cm and 5.14 (1.49) cm, respectively. The highest average error values were observed in the depth orientation for both DCMTSs. The proposed method achieved high reliability with ICCs of 0.97 and 0.92 for the Kinect system and RealSense system, respectively.
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.