Comparison of Concurrent and Asynchronous Running Kinematics and Kinetics From Marker-Based and Markerless Motion Capture Under Varying Clothing Conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As markerless motion capture is increasingly used to measure 3-dimensional human pose, it is important to understand how markerless results can be interpreted alongside historical marker-based data and how they are impacted by clothing. We compared concurrent running kinematics and kinetics between marker-based and markerless motion capture, and between 2 markerless clothing conditions. Thirty adults ran on an instrumented treadmill wearing motion capture clothing while concurrent marker-based and markerless data were recorded, and ran a second time wearing athletic clothing (shorts and t-shirt) while markerless data were recorded. Differences calculated between the concurrent signals from both systems, and also between each participant's mean signals from both asynchronous clothing conditions were summarized across all participants using root mean square differences. Most kinematic and kinetic signals were visually consistent between systems and markerless clothing conditions. Between systems, joint center positions differed by 3 cm or less, sagittal plane joint angles differed by 5° or less, and frontal and transverse plane angles differed by 5° to 10°. Joint moments differed by 0.3 N·m/kg or less between systems. Differences were sensitive to segment coordinate system definitions, highlighting the effects of these definitions when comparing against historical data or other motion capture modalities.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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 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".