Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42884197›Full record

ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2026

Validation of Pose Estimation Models for Automated Kickboxing Technique Analysis Using 2TRAX3.

Samir Duvelek, Dominik Peter Hoelbling, Roland Breiteneder, Benedikt Mitter, René Baranyi, Thomas Grechenig

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

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.

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

6 authors.

Samir DuvelekResearch Group for Industrial Software (INSO), Vienna University of Technology, 1040 Vienna, Austria.ORCID 0009-0009-7918-0094
Dominik Peter HoelblingSoftware and Digital Systems Engineering, University of Applied Sciences Wiener Neustadt (FHWN), Biotech Campus Tulln, Konrad Lorenz Straße 10, 3430 Tulln, Austria.ORCID 0000-0001-7099-2576
Roland BreitenederInstitute of Software Engineering and Artificial Intelligence, TU Graz, Inffeldgasse 16b/II, 8010 Graz, Austria.
Benedikt MitterResearch Group for Industrial Software (INSO), Vienna University of Technology, 1040 Vienna, Austria.ORCID 0000-0001-6056-5853
René BaranyiResearch Group for Industrial Software (INSO), Vienna University of Technology, 1040 Vienna, Austria.ORCID 0000-0002-0088-9140
Thomas GrechenigResearch Group for Industrial Software (INSO), Vienna University of Technology, 1040 Vienna, Austria.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Biomechanical feedback can improve sports technique, but the 3D motion capturing gold standards typically used to generate such feedback are rarely available in everyday training. This study evaluates how the choice of pose estimation model affects automated movement analysis of the double side kick in Pointfighting, Kickboxing using ordinary 2D side-view video. In doing so, the study aims to determine whether advances in pose-estimation models translate into meaningful improvements in complete, sport-specific movement-analysis systems under realistic training conditions. The analysis compared MoveNet, YOLO11x-Pose, ViTPose-L, and RTMPose-L on 27 videos recorded under varying lighting conditions. Seventeen movement characteristics extracted from the videos were compared with 3D motion-capture measurements of the same kicks. Friedman tests with Wilcoxon signed-rank post-hoc tests showed that model choice significantly affected phase-duration errors (p<0.01, Kendall's W=0.150) and femur-angle errors (p<0.01, Kendall's W=0.174), but not leg-spreading angles or distance- and height-based characteristics. ViTPose-L achieved the lowest median errors for phase durations (0.043 s, IQR 0.035 to 0.062 s), femur angles (6.95°, IQR 4.35 to 11.65°), and leg-spreading angles (6.22°, IQR 5.08 to 10.04°), while RTMPose-L had the lowest median error for distance- and height-based characteristics (6.09 percentage points, IQR 3.84 to 9.10). Bland-Altman analysis showed generally small systematic biases, but acceptable agreement with the 3D reference system was achieved only for a small subset of the evaluated characteristics. The runtime benchmark, performed on the tested local hardware, further demonstrated substantial differences in computational efficiency, with mean processing speeds ranging from 6.50 ± 0.10 FPS for ViTPose-L to 66.87 ± 0.36 FPS for MoveNet. These findings indicate that, for 2D technique analysis of rapid sports movements from side-view recordings that meet minimum quality requirements, ViTPose-L and RTMPose-L are preferable when accuracy and keypoint completeness are prioritized, whereas MoveNet is preferable when runtime performance on comparable hardware is the main requirement. Therefore, the choice of pose-estimation model is strongly use-case dependent, and automated 2D analysis should be interpreted as approximate feedback for selected characteristics rather than precise individual-level biomechanical measurement.

Indexed as

Martial ArtsAlgorithmsBiomechanical PhenomenaHumansImaging, Three-DimensionalMotion CaptureMovementVideo RecordingbiomechanicsBland–Altman analysiscomputer visiondouble side kickmartial artsmotion capturepose estimationtemporal phase analysis

Identifiers

PMID42884197
PMCPMC13667236

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.