The Use of Microsoft Kinect for Human Movement Analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to provide evidence of reliability and validity for the use of a Microsoft Kinect system to measure displacement in human movement analysis. Three dimensional (3D) video motion systems are commonly used to analyze human movement kinematics of body joints and segments for many diverse applications related to gait analysis, rehabilitation, sports performance, medical robotics, and biofeedback. These systems, however, have certain drawbacks pertaining to the use of markers, calibration time, number of cameras, and high cost. Microsoft Kinect systems create 3D images and are low cost, portable, not markers required, and easy to set up. They lack, however, evidence of reliability and validity for human movement kinematics analysis. Twenty-six participants were recruited for this study. Peak Motus version 9 and Microsoft Kinect system with customized skeleton software were used to collect data from each subject sitting on a platform moving horizontally at the speed of 2.4 meters per minute. The Peak Motus system demonstrated higher degree of reliability for all body joints when compared to the Kinect system. In terms of validity evidence, the Kinect system demonstrated a stronger agreement to the Peak Motus system for the left and right knee joints. The results of this study support the literature and indicate that the Kinect system has potential to be used as a tool to measure and analyze human movement kinematics.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it