Evaluating Lower Limb Kinematics Using Microsoft’s Kinect: A Simple, Novel Method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Our aim was to evaluate the Microsoft Kinect sensor (MKS) as a markerless system for motion capture and analysis of lower limb motion, compare it with a state-of-the-art marker-based system (MBS), and investigate its accuracy in simultaneously capturing several lower limb joint movements on several planes while participants walked freely. Method: Participants were asked to walk while gait data were simultaneously recorded by both the MKS and the MBS. Software for analysing the Kinect data stream was developed using Microsoft Visual Studio and Kinect for Windows software development kits. Visual three-dimensional (3D) C-Motion software was used to calculate 3D joint angles of the MBS. Deviation of the joint angles calculated by the two systems was calculated using root-mean-square error (RMSE) on the basis of a designated formula. Results: The calculated RMSE average was <5° between the two systems, a level of difference that has practically no clinical significance. Conclusions: Quantitative measurements of the joint angles of the knee and hip can be acquired using one MKS with some accuracy. The system can be advantageous for clinical use, at the pre- and post-treatment stages of rehabilitation, at significantly lower costs. Further evaluation of the MKS should be performed with larger study populations.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".