Comparison of Marker- and Markerless-Derived Lower Body Three-Dimensional Gait Kinematics in Typically Developing Children
Background: Marker-based motion capture is the current gold standard for three-dimensional (3D) gait analysis. This is a highly technical analysis that is time-consuming, and marker application can trigger anxiety in children. One potential solution is to use markerless camera systems instead. The o...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
MDPI AG
2025-07-01
|
| Series: | Sensors |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/25/14/4249 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | Background: Marker-based motion capture is the current gold standard for three-dimensional (3D) gait analysis. This is a highly technical analysis that is time-consuming, and marker application can trigger anxiety in children. One potential solution is to use markerless camera systems instead. The objective of this study was to compare 3D lower limb gait kinematics in children using both marker-based and markerless motion capture methods. Methods: Ten typically developing children (age 6–13 yrs) completed five barefoot walks at a self-selected speed. A 10-camera marker-based system (Oqus, Qualisys) and a 7-camera markerless system (Miqus, Qualisys) captured synchronised gait data at 85 Hz. Generalised Additive Mixed Models were fitted to the data to identify the random effects of measurement systems, age, and time across the gait cycle. The root-mean-square difference (RMSD) was used to compare the differences between systems. Results: Significant interactions and differences were observed between the marker-based and markerless systems for most joint angles and planes of motion, particularly with regard to time and age. Conclusions: Despite differences across all kinematic profiles, the RMSD in this study was comparable to previously published results. Alternative model definitions and kinematic crosstalk in both systems likely explain the differences. Age differences were not consistent across joint levels, suggesting a larger sample size is required to determine how maturation may affect markerless tracking. Further investigation is required to understand the deviations and differences between systems before implementing markerless technology in a clinical setting. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1424-8220 |