ArticleInternational biomechanics2021
Comparing optical and electromagnetic tracking systems to facilitate compatibility in sports kinematics data.
Article in International biomechanics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Motion Capture Technologies for Athletic Performance Enhancement and Injury Risk Assessment: A Review for Multi-Sport Organizations.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Computer vision for kinematic metrics of the drinking task in a pilot study of neurotypical participants.Scientific reports · 2024Article
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
Electromagnetic (EM) tracking has been used to quantify biomechanical parameters of the lower limb and lumbar spine during ergometer rowing to improve performance and reduce injury. Optical motion capture (OMC) is potentially better suited to measure comprehensive whole-body dynamics in rowing. This study compared accuracy and precision of EM and OMC displacements by simultaneously recording kinematics during rowing trials at low, middle, and high rates on an instrumented ergometer (n=12). Trajectories calculated from OMC and EM sensors attached to the pelvis, lumbar spine, and right leg were highly correlated, but EM tracking lagged behind ergometer and OMC tracking by approximately 6%, yielding large RMS errors. When this phase-lag was corrected by least squares minimization, agreement between systems improved. Both systems demonstrated an ability to adequately track large dynamic compound movements in the sagittal plane but struggled at times to precisely track small displacements and narrow angular ranges in medial/lateral and superior/inferior directions. An OMC based tracking methodology can obtain equivalence with a previously validated EM system, for spine and lower limb metrics. Improvements in speed and consistency of data acquisition with OMC are beneficial for dynamic motion studies. Compatibility ensures continuity by maintaining the ability to compare to prior work.
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.