Evaluation of a portable markerless finger position capture device: accuracy of the Leap Motion controller in healthy adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although motion analysis is frequently employed in upper limb motor assessment (e.g. visually-guided reaching), they are resource-intensive and limited to laboratory settings. This study evaluated the reliability and accuracy of a new markerless motion capture device, the Leap Motion controller, to measure finger position. Testing conditions that influence reliability and agreement between the Leap and a research-grade motion capture system were examined. Nine healthy young adults pointed to 15 targets on a computer screen under two conditions: (1) touching the target (touch) and (2) 4 cm away from the target (no-touch). Leap data was compared to an Optotrak marker attached to the index finger. Across all trials, root mean square (RMS) error of the Leap system was 17.30 ± 9.56 mm (mean ± SD), sampled at 65.47 ± 21.53 Hz. The % viable trials and mean sampling rate were significantly lower in the touch condition (44% versus 64%, p < 0.001; 52.02 ± 2.93 versus 73.98 ± 4.48 Hz, p = 0.003). While linear correlations were high (horizontal: r(2) = 0.995, vertical r(2) = 0.945), the limits of agreement were large (horizontal: -22.02 to +26.80 mm, vertical: -29.41 to +30.14 mm). While not as precise as more sophisticated optical motion capture systems, the Leap Motion controller is sufficiently reliable for measuring motor performance in pointing tasks that do not require high positional accuracy (e.g. reaction time, Fitt's, trails, bimanual coordination).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".