ArticleScientific reports2023
Validation of machine vision and action sport cameras for 3D motion analysis model reconstruction.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Binocular ultra-high-speed photography for measuring tennis ball speed and spin at impact.iScience · 2026Article
- Validated low-cost standardized VICON configuration as a practical approach to estimating the minimal accuracy of a specific setup.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Employing emerging technologies such as motion capture to study the complex interplay between genotype and power-related performance traits.Frontiers in physiology · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The study investigated the feasibility of using action sport cameras for motion analysis research. Data acquired from two different marker-based motion capture systems and six different camera combinations were analyzed for motion reconstruction accuracy. Two different calibration procedures were used to determine the influence on marker position reconstruction. Static and dynamic calibration mean merit score differences between the reference and experimental camera systems were 0.4 mm and 1.3 mm, respectively. Angular displacement difference between the reference and experimental camera systems range between 0.1 and 2.0 degrees. A systematic bias (- 0.54 to 0.19 degrees) was determined between the reference and the experimental camera systems for range of motion. The mean of the multi-trial findings suggests the machine vision camera system calibrated with a dynamic procedure generated highly accurate three-dimensional reconstructed ROM data (0.5 degree) followed closely by the four action sport cameras implementing a static calibration procedure (0.5 degree). The overall findings suggest the selected machine vision and action sport camera systems produced comparable results to the reference motion analysis system. However, the combination of camera type, processing software, and calibration procedure can influence motion reconstruction accuracy.
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.