ReviewSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2026
IMU- and Vision-Based Measurement Techniques for Joint Kinematics: A Narrative Review.
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.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.