Comparison of the Performance of the Leap Motion ControllerTM with a Standard Marker-Based Motion Capture System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the last few years, the Leap Motion Controller™ (LMC) has been increasingly used in clinical environments to track hand, wrist and forearm positions as an alternative to the gold-standard motion capture systems. Since the LMC is marker-less, portable, easy-to-use and low-cost, it is rapidly being adopted in healthcare services. This paper demonstrates the comparison of finger kinematic data between the LMC and a gold-standard marker-based motion capture system, Qualisys Track Manager (QTM). Both systems were time synchronised, and the participants performed abduction/adduction of the thumb and flexion/extension movements of all fingers. The LMC and QTM were compared in both static measuring finger segment lengths and dynamic flexion movements of all fingers. A Bland–Altman plot was used to demonstrate the performance of the LMC versus QTM with Pearson’s correlation (r) to demonstrate trends in the data. Only the proximal interphalangeal joint (PIP) joint of the middle and ring finger during flexion/extension demonstrated acceptable agreement (r = 0.9062; r = 0.8978), but with a high mean bias. In conclusion, the study shows that currently, the LMC is not suitable to replace gold-standard motion capture systems in clinical settings. Further studies should be conducted to validate the performance of the LMC as it is updated and upgraded.
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 | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".