Quantifying Similarities Between MediaPipe and a Known Standard to Address Issues in Tracking 2D Upper Limb Trajectories: Proof of Concept Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Markerless motion tracking methods have promise for use in a range of domains, including clinical settings where traditional marker-based systems for human pose estimation are not feasible. Artificial intelligence (AI)-based systems can offer a markerless, lightweight approach to motion capture. However, the accuracy of such systems, such as MediaPipe, for tracking fine upper limb movements involving the hand has not been explored. Objective: The aim of this study is to evaluate the 2D accuracy of MediaPipe against a known standard. Methods: Participants (N=10) performed a touchscreen-based shape-tracing task requiring them to trace the trajectory of a moving cursor using their index finger. Cursor trajectories created a reoccurring or random shape at 5 different speeds (500-2500 ms, in increments of 500 ms). Movement trajectories on each trial were simultaneously captured by the touchscreen and a separate video camera. Movement coordinates for each trial were extracted from the touchscreen and compared to those predicted by MediaPipe. Specifically, following resampling, normalization, and Procrustes transformations, root-mean-squared error (RMSE; primary outcome measure) was calculated between predicted coordinates and those generated by the touchscreen computer. Results: Although there was some size distortion in the frame-by-frame estimates predicted by MediaPipe, shapes were similar between the 2 methods and transformations improved the general overlap and similarity of the shapes. The resultant mean RMSE between predicted coordinates and those generated by the touchscreen was 0.28 (SD 0.06) normalized px. Equivalence testing revealed that accuracy differed between MediaPipe and the touchscreen, but that the true difference was between 0 and 0.30 normalized px (t114=-3.02; P=.002). Additional analyses revealed no differences in resultant RMSE between methods when comparing across lower frame rates (30 and 60 frames per second [FPS]), although there was greater RMSE for 120 FPS than for 60 FPS (t35.43=-2.51; P=.03). Conclusions: Overall, we quantified similarities between one AI-based approach to motion capture and a known standard for tracking fine upper limb movements, informing applications of such systems in domains such as clinical and research settings. Future work should address accuracy in 3 dimensions to further validate the use of AI-based systems, including MediaPipe, in such domains.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».