Static and dynamic validation of kinect for ergonomic postural analysis using electro-goniometers as a gold standard:A preliminary study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Evaluation of the working postures and development of new techniques are paramount in reducing the awkward postures and occurrence of musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs). The Kinect sensor, a portable and cost-effective device, appears to be a promising alternative to study work postures. OBJECTIVE: The current study aimed to evaluate the validity of Kinect against the gold-standard instrument (electro-goniometers) for body joint angle measurements. METHODS: A unique software application was developed to measure the critical body joint angles for postural evaluation by using the Kinect's skeletal tracking feature. The body joint angle data of ten volunteers were measured simultaneously by both Kinect and electro-goniometers. The validation analysis was conducted in both static and dynamic domains of application. RESULTS: Minimal variation was observed between the two techniques, and the Kinect correlated well for upper-arm joint angles of 45∘, 60∘ and 90∘; lower-arm joint angles of 30∘, 45∘, 60∘, and 90∘; straight neck position, neck joint angle at maximum possible flexion; straight trunk position, trunk bend angle at full flexion. In dynamic analysis, four out of five ICC values were > 0.75 except for the upper arm. Discrepancies in the results indicated the disapproval of Kinect for only wrist measurements. CONCLUSION: The results of the static and dynamic studies gave a sufficient basis to consider the Kinect tool as an alternative to contemporary posture-based ergonomic evaluation methods.
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 | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".