ArticleIEEE transactions on bio-medical engineering2026
Impact of Multi-View Fusion and Biomechanical Modeling on Markerless Motion Tracking.
Article in IEEE transactions on bio-medical engineering, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Validations and applications of markerless motion capture using OpenCap: a scoping review.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Pooled it
- DeepGaitLab: Accurate and Flexible Markerless Motion Tracking Powered by Synthetic Data.Research square · 2026Article
- Markerless Motion Capture for Human Movement Estimation Using Artificial Intelligence: A Systematic Review.Pediatric reports · 2026Review
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
objectiveMarkerless motion tracking using computer vision offers a scalable alternative to traditional marker-based analysis. While insight on how different emerging solutions compare could inform adoption across applications by highlighting accuracy-complexity tradeoffs, comprehensive benchmarking of these methods on the same open dataset remains a gap. This study evaluated thirteen single-view and two multi-view markerless motion capture methods against marker-based motion tracking for lower-extremity kinematics. Twenty-three healthy adults performed walking and lower-limb functional exercises, recorded with 20 infrared and 10 red-green-blue (RGB) cameras. The best-performing single-view model (WHAM) was used to test the hypothesis that the anatomical constraints imposed by biomechanical models improve the accuracy of vision-only solutions. We found that the addition of biomechanical modeling (bioWHAM) does not significantly improve overall kinematics accuracy, with root-mean-square differences (RMSD) sometimes being lower for the baseline model (WHAM) and sometimes for bioWHAM, with the median fluctuations across tasks being under 1.7$^\circ $, in either direction. Multi-view methods generally outperformed single-view ones: OpenCap, an open-source solution using two cameras, outperformed WHAM by 1.7$^\circ $ (p < 0.0001), whereas Theia3D, a commercial software using ten cameras, outperformed OpenCap by 1.3$^\circ $ (p < 0.0001). These findings suggest that while multi-view systems can enhance accuracy, the marginal benefits may not justify the added complexity across all applications. In addition to helping users consider the hardware, software, and accuracy tradeoffs, these findings highlight the need for continued innovation in multi-view fusion and incorporation of biomechanical modeling and computer vision. The accompanying dataset (I-MOVE-23) should facilitate continued benchmarking of emerging solutions.
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.