ArticleCognitive processing2026
SmartDetector: a valid and affordable AI-based markerless motion capture system for psychological experiments.
Article in Cognitive processing, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this paper, we evaluate the validity of SmartDetector—a markerless motion capture device based on artificial intelligence—by comparing it to a conventional optoelectronic motion capture system (i.e., Qualisys) in the context of stimuli construction for psychological experiments. To this end, simultaneous motion capture recordings were performed using both the conventional system and the SmartDetector, enabling the creation of 2D kinematic data and the generation of two versions of point-light displays. Three perceptual experiments were then conducted to facilitate comparisons between the two systems: a recognition task, a detection task, and a discrimination task. Bayesian analysis was employed to test the null hypotheses regarding the stimuli generated by SmartDetector versus those produced by the conventional motion capture system. The results suggest that participants achieved comparable performance across both types of stimuli depending on the task with reduced processing time and lower costs for SmartDetector. These findings appear to validate SmartDetector as a reliable and accessible alternative for creating point-light displays, reducing processing time and costs, thus reinforcing its potential for widespread adoption by professionals in the field.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41511591What 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.