A comparison of lower extremity squat, lunge, and hip hinge kinematics between marker based and markerless motion capture systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The resource-intensive nature of traditional marker-based motion capture systems limits opportunities for quantitative motion analysis. However, the advancement of markerless motion capture technology yields tremendous promise for accessible kinematic analyses beyond conventional research settings. This work compared the lower limb kinematics measured by a neural network-driven markerless motion capture system to those from a standard marker-based motion capture system during squat, hip hinge, and reverse lunge tasks. Fourteen adults performed three repetitions of each movement while being recorded simultaneously by two iPads and 17 infrared optical motion capture cameras. The mean peak cross-correlation values indicated high agreement for knee and hip flexion (>0.95) and poor agreement for hip adduction, knee varus, and internal rotation (<0.49) for all tasks; agreement for hip internal rotation and ankle flexion was task dependent (0.27–0.97). The average root mean square error indicated joint-specific offsets between systems, as values ranged from 6.43° to 12.32° for the knee, 11.25° to 17.35° for the hip, and 21.51° to 25.67° for the ankle. These findings suggest that, while the markerless system demonstrates the ability to capture gross motor patterns in the sagittal plane, further refinement of the underlying models is needed to improve the validity of the system’s measurements.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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 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".