A comparative study of in-field motion capture approaches for body kinematics measurement in construction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Due to physically demanding tasks in construction, workers are exposed to significant safety and health risks. Measuring and evaluating body kinematics while performing tasks helps to identify the fundamental causes of excessive physical demands, enabling practitioners to implement appropriate interventions to reduce them. Recently, non-invasive or minimally invasive motion capture approaches such as vision-based motion capture systems and angular measurement sensors have emerged, which can be used for in-field kinematics measurements, minimally interfering with on-going work. Given that these approaches have pros and cons for kinematic measurement due to adopted sensors and algorithms, an in-depth understanding of the performance of each approach will support better decisions for their adoption in construction. With this background, the authors evaluate the performance of vision-based (RGB-D sensor-, stereovision camera-, and multiple camera-based) and an angular measurement sensor-based (i.e., an optical encoder) approach to measure body angles through experimental testing. Specifically, measured body angles from these approaches were compared with the ones obtained from a marker-based motion capture system that has less than 0.1 mm of errors. The results showed that vision-based approaches have about 5–10 degrees of error in body angles, while an angular measurement sensor-based approach measured body angles with about 3 degrees of error during diverse tasks. The results indicate that, in general, these approaches can be applicable for diverse ergonomic methods to identify potential safety and health risks, such as rough postural assessment, time and motion study or trajectory analysis where some errors in motion data would not significantly sacrifice their reliability. Combined with relatively accurate angular measurement sensors, vision-based motion capture approaches also have great potential to enable us to perform in-depth physical demand analysis such as biomechanical analysis that requires full-body motion data, even though further improvement of accuracy is necessary. Additionally, understanding of body kinematics of workers would enable ergonomic mechanical design for automated machines and assistive robots that helps to reduce physical demands while supporting workers' capabilities.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".