ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Validation of Azure Kinect for Upper Limb Motion Analysis Under Optimal and Suboptimal Conditions.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Assessment of upper-limb kinematics is essential in clinical practice for diagnosis, rehabilitation monitoring, and treatment personalization. Markerless Motion Capture (MMC) systems, such as the Microsoft Azure Kinect (AK), offer a low-cost and time-efficient alternative to marker-based systems. However, while AK accuracy has been extensively studied for lower-limb movements, its performance for upper-limb analysis-especially under clinically relevant, suboptimal conditions-remains underexplored. This study aims to validate AK for upper-limb motion tracking against a gold-standard optoelectronic system under optimal and suboptimal conditions. Sixteen healthy adults performed ten upper body motor tasks in three scenarios: optimal setup, seated posture with table occlusion, and increased camera distance. Joint angles were compared using normalized Root Mean Squared Error (nRMSE) and Pearson's correlation coefficient. Performance Indicators (PIs) including Range of Motion (ROM), smoothness, and Time to Peak Velocity (TTPV) were also evaluated. AK accurately captured movements performed within the camera plane, with median nRMSE below 20% in optimal conditions and no significant degradation in suboptimal setups. In contrast, movements occurring on planes perpendicular to the camera were poorly captured. ROM estimation was acceptable and highly reproducible, while TTPV showed moderate-to-poor reliability and smoothness deviated substantially from the reference system. These findings suggest that careful attention to Kinect positioning is essential to ensure effective acquisitions, even in suboptimal scenarios. Future research should evaluate AK validity in clinical populations and explore the effects of system interference in multi-device setups.
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.