ArticleFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2026
Evaluating the accuracy of table tennis 3D markerless motion capture based on two video cameras: a pilot study.
Article in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 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
Introduction: This pilot study presents a 3D markerless motion capture system for table tennis using binocular cameras, based on the OpenPose framework and linear triangulation to obtain 3D joint motion data. The system's accuracy was compared to a marker-based system, and the impact of different camera. Methods: A comparative experiment was conducted between the proposed markerless system and a marker-based reference system. Three camera configurations were tested: RR-100 (right-right placement, 100 cm baseline), RR-145 (right-right placement, 145 cm baseline), and RF-100 (right-front placement, 100 cm baseline). Dynamic Time Warping (DTW) similarity of elbow joint angle curves was used as the primary accuracy metric, and statistical comparisons (p-values) were performed to identify significant differences in system errors across configurations. Results: (1) At a camera position of RR-100, the DTW similarity of the elbow joint angle curves between the markerless and marker-based systems was 0.941, 0.719, and 0.854, respectively, similar to the marker-based system. The DTW similarity reached 0.948, 0.730, and 0.887 for RR-145 and 0.949, 0.729, and 0.860 for RF-100. (2) Significant differences in system errors were found at varying baseline distances with L = RR, showing better accuracy at 145 cm (p < 0.01). (3) Significant differences in errors were found with L = RF and a 100 cm baseline, with better accuracy at RF (p < 0.01). Conclusion: (1) The markerless system, though slightly less accurate, can also capture joint motion data. (2) Increasing baseline distance improves accuracy when the camera position is fixed. (3) With a fixed baseline distance, the system with the RF camera position outperforms the RR position in accuracy.
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.