Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42655373›Full record

ReviewSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2026

IMU- and Vision-Based Measurement Techniques for Joint Kinematics: A Narrative Review.

Luca Ceriola, Luca Molinaro, Juri Taborri, Fabrizio Patanè, Ilaria Mileti

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Luca CeriolaDepartment of Engineering, University Niccolò Cusano, 00166 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0009-0004-0287-485X
Luca MolinaroDepartment of Theoretical and Applied Sciences (DiSTA), eCampus University, 22060 Novedrate, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-9030-1998
Juri TaborriDepartment of Economics Engineering Society and Business Organization (DEIM), University of Tuscia, 01100 Viterbo, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-8997-7605
Fabrizio PatanèDepartment of Engineering, University Niccolò Cusano, 00166 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-0488-6139
Ilaria MiletiDepartment of Engineering, University Niccolò Cusano, 00166 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-1064-7962

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Accurate assessment of joint kinematics is fundamental to biomechanics, rehabilitation, and sports science. Although optical motion capture (OMC) remains the laboratory reference standard for biomechanical validation, its cost, infrastructure requirements, and limited applicability outside controlled environments restrict its broader use. Wearable inertial measurement units (IMUs) and vision-based markerless systems have consequently emerged as complementary alternatives, offering portability, reduced subject preparation, and applicability in ecological settings. Their rapid development, however, has not always been accompanied by an equally rigorous metrological interpretation of performance. This narrative review provides a comparative analysis of IMU- and vision-based approaches for joint kinematics estimation, focusing on biomechanical validation metrics and measurement error. Because the primary literature reports fundamentally different quantities under widely differing experimental conditions, evidence is presented stratified by outcome class, joint, plane of motion, task, and acquisition dimensionality, and values belonging to different outcome classes are not pooled. For sagittal-plane lower-limb angles during level walking in healthy adults, with careful sensor-to-segment calibration and an optoelectronic reference, IMU-based systems show the most consistent performance, with RMSE commonly between 3° and 6°. Vision-based systems achieve comparable accuracy for selected outcomes, particularly spatiotemporal gait parameters and sagittal-plane angles in controlled views, while degrading with occlusion, motion blur, and depth ambiguity. Accuracy is therefore not an intrinsic property of the sensing modality but of the entire measurement chain, including calibration, biomechanical modeling, acquisition geometry, and reporting conventions. Rather than ranking technologies by accuracy alone, the measurement requirements should be derived from the intended application.

Indexed as

JointsVision, OcularBiomechanical PhenomenaGaitHumansMotion CaptureWalkingWearable Electronic Devicesbiomechanical validationbiomechanicscomputer visiongait analysisinertial measurement unitsjoint kinematicsmarkerless motion capturemeasurement accuracysensor fusion

Identifiers

PMID42655373
PMCPMC13517796

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.