ArticleFrontiers in sports and active living2026
Influence of camera geometry on 3D joint angle estimation in markerless motion capture.
Article in Frontiers in sports and active living, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: This study examined how camera geometry influences the agreement of two-camera markerless joint-angle estimates with an eight-camera markerless reference system. Methods: Twenty-three female soccer athletes completed pre-season Y-balance, L-hop, countermovement jump, broad jump, and bodyweight squat tasks. Movements were recorded using an eight-camera Theia3D markerless system as the reference. All 28 two-camera combinations were processed using a custom Pose2Sim-based pipeline to estimate lower-limb joint angles. Camera geometry was quantified from calibration data, including camera height, distance to origin, azimuth, field of view, and horizontal angular separation. Agreement with the reference system and consistency among two-camera configurations were assessed using root mean square error (RMSE), mean absolute error (MAE), bias, limits of agreement, and coefficient of multiple correlation (CMC). Results: Agreement varied by camera geometry, anatomical plane, and task. Front and Back configurations, with moderate horizontal angular separation values of 68.59 ± 17.68° and 80.95 ± 22.35°, generally showed more favorable agreement, particularly for sagittal-plane hip and knee kinematics (RMSE < 8°, CMC ≈ 1.00). Same Quadrant configurations had the smallest angular separation (28.24 ± 3.81°) and poorer agreement, especially for frontal- and transverse-plane angles (RMSE > 10°, CMC < 0.60). Diagonal configurations had the largest angular separation (160.56 ± 13.40°) but did not consistently improve agreement. Y-balance and L-hop showed reduced agreement and higher dropout due to self-occlusion and participants moving outside the field of view. Conclusion: Camera geometry influenced two-camera markerless motion capture agreement. Front and Back configurations with moderate angular separation were most suitable for sagittal-dominant bilateral tasks, whereas Same Quadrant configurations should be avoided. For Y-balance and L-hop, camera placement should prioritize foot/ankle visibility and full movement-path coverage rather than angular separation alone.
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.