ArticleBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Around-Body Versus On-Body Motion Sensing: A Comparison of Efficacy Across a Range of Body Movements and Scales.
Article in Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Biomechanics and Motion Analysis: From Human Performance to Clinical Practice.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Motion is vital for life. Currently, the clinical assessment of motion abnormalities is largely qualitative. We previously developed methods to quantitatively assess motion using visual detection systems (around-body) and stretchable electronic sensors (on-body). Here we compare the efficacy of these methods across predefined motions, hypothesizing that the around-body system detects motion with similar accuracy as on-body sensors. Six human volunteers performed six defined motions covering three excursion lengths, small, medium, and large, which were analyzed via both around-body visual marker detection (MoCa version 1.0) and on-body stretchable electronic sensors (BioStamp version 1.0). Data from each system was compared as to the extent of trackability and comparative efficacy between systems. Both systems successfully detected motions, allowing quantitative analysis. Angular displacement between systems had the highest agreement efficiency for the bicep curl and body lean motion, with 73.24% and 65.35%, respectively. The finger pinch motion had an agreement efficiency of 36.71% and chest abduction/adduction had 45.55%. Shoulder abduction/adduction and shoulder flexion/extension motions had the lowest agreement efficiencies with 24.49% and 26.28%, respectively. MoCa was comparable to BioStamp in terms of angular displacement, though velocity and linear speed output could benefit from additional processing. Our findings demonstrate comparable efficacy for non-contact motion detection to that of on-body sensor detection, and offers insight as to the best system selection for specific clinical uses based on the use-case of the desired motion being analyzed.
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.