ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Comparative Analysis of the Accuracy and Robustness of the Leap Motion Controller 2.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. 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
Along with the ongoing success of virtual/augmented reality (VR/AR) and human-machine interaction (HMI) in the professional and consumer markets, new compatible and inexpensive hand tracking devices are required. One of the contenders in this market is the Leap Motion Controller 2 (LMC2), successor to the popular Leap Motion Controller (LMC1), which has been widely used for scientific hand-tracking applications since its introduction in 2013. To quantify ten years of advances, this study compares both controllers using quantitative tracking metrics and characterizes the interaction space above the sensor. A robot-actuated 3D-printed hand and a motion-capture system provide controlled movements and external reference data. In the central tracking volume, the LMC2 achieves improved performance, reducing palm-position error from 7.9-9.8 mm (LMC1) to 5.2-5.3 mm (LMC2) and lowering positional variability from 1.3-2.2 mm to 0.4-0.8 mm. Dynamic tests confirm stable tracking for both devices. For boundary experiments, the LMC2 maintains continuous detection at distances up to 666 mm, compared to 250-275 mm (LMC1), and detects hands entering the field of view from distances up to 646 mm. Both devices show reduced accuracy toward the edges of the tracking volume. Overall, the results provide a grounded characterization of LMC2 performance in its newly emphasized VR/AR-relevant interaction spaces, while the metrics support cross-comparison with earlier LMC1-based studies and transfer to related application scenarios.
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.