ArticleBMC research notes2026
Optimizing camera placement in multi-view markerless motion capture: a validation study against gold-standard kinematics for static and dynamic tasks.
Article in BMC research notes, 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to determine the optimal camera configuration for a markerless motion capture system, which may offer a lower-cost alternative to laboratory based systems. It validated the system's performance against a gold standard during both static postures and a dynamic lifting task, addressing a key gap regarding the impact of camera arrangement on measurement validity. Six unique stereo camera pairs were calibrated for 3D reconstruction using MediaPipe. Joint angles were computed, and agreement was assessed using Mean Absolute Error (MAE), Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC), and Bland-Altman analysis.
resultsSystem performance was highly sensitive to camera geometry. The optimal configuration (approximately 45 degrees separation) demonstrated excellent agreement for both static (ICC = 0.851, MAE = 9.28 degrees) and dynamic (ICC = 0.823, MAE = 12.92 degrees) tasks. Major peripheral joints (hips, knees, shoulders) showed good to excellent reliability (ICC = 0.73-0.92), while neck showed only moderate agreement (ICC = 0.56-0.66). Configurations with very wide baselines (greater than 90 degrees) performed poorly (ICC < 0.40). A two-camera setup with a narrow baseline can yield clinically useful joint angle estimates for major joints, providing practical guidance for affordable motion-capture deployment in biomechanics, ergonomics, and rehabilitation.
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.