Abstract:Measuring motion of the human foot presents a unique challenge due to the large number of closely packed bones with congruent articulating surfaces. Optical motion capture (OMC) and multi-segment models can be used to infer foot motion, but might be affected by soft tissue artifact (STA). Biplanar videoradiography (BVR) is a relatively new tool that allows direct, non-invasive measurement of bone motion using high-speed, dynamic x-ray images to track individual bones. It is unknown whether OMC and BVR can be used interchangeably to analyse multi-segment foot motion. Therefore, the aim of this study was to determine the agreement in kinematic measures of dynamic activities. Nine healthy participants performed three walking and three running trials while BVR was recorded with synchronous OMC. Bone position and orientation was determined through manual scientific-rotoscoping. The OMC and BVR kinematics were co-registered to the same coordinate system, and BVR tracking was used to create virtual markers for comparison to OMC during dynamic trials. Root mean square (RMS) differences in marker positions and joint angles as well as a linear fit method (LFM) was used to compare the outputs of both methods. When comparing BVR and OMC, sagittal plane angles were in good agreement (ankle: R2 = 0.947, 0.939; Medial Longitudinal Arch (MLA) Angle: R2 = 0.713, 0.703, walking and running, respectively). When examining the ankle, there was a moderate agreement between the systems in the frontal plane (R2 = 0.322, 0.452, walking and running, respectively), with a weak to moderate correlation for the transverse plane (R2 = 0.178, 0.326, walking and running, respectively). However, root mean squared error (RMSE) showed angular errors ranging from 1.06 to 8.31° across the planes (frontal: 3.57°, 3.67°, transverse: 4.28°, 4.70°, sagittal: 2.45°, 2.67°, walking and running, respectively). Root mean square (RMS) differences between OMC and BVR marker trajectories were task dependent with the largest differences in the shank (6.0 ± 2.01 mm) for running, and metatarsals (3.97 ± 0.81 mm) for walking. Based on the results, we suggest BVR and OMC provide comparable solutions to foot motion in the sagittal plane, however, interpretations of out-of-plane movement should be made carefully.

A Method for Calculating Lower Extremity Anatomical Landmark Trajectories Based on Inertial Motion Capture Data

Comparison of kinematics and joint moments calculations for lower limbs during gait using markerless and marker-based motion capture

Human Center of Mass Trajectory Estimation Based on the IMU System

Real-time inertial lower body kinematics and ground contact estimation at anatomical foot points for agile human locomotion

Predicting kinetics using musculoskeletal modeling and inertial motion capture

Improved Trajectory Reconstruction for Markerless Pose Estimation

IMU-Based Joint Angle Measurement for Gait Analysis

Concurrent assessment of gait kinematics using marker-based and markerless motion capture

Biomechanical model-based displacement estimation in micro-sensor motion capture

Using Virtual Markers To Explore Kinematics Of Articular Bearing Surfaces Of Knee Joints

The Lower Limbs Kinematics Analysis by Wearable Sensor Shoes

Smoother-Based 3-D Foot Trajectory Estimation Using Inertial Sensors.

Comparative Analysis of Markerless Motion Capture Systems for Measuring Human Kinematics

JointTracker: Real-time inertial kinematic chain tracking with joint position estimation

Performance Evaluation Of Lower Limb Ambulatory Measurement Using Reduced Inertial Measurement Units And 3r Gait Model

Body-Worn IMU-Based Human Hip and Knee Kinematics Estimation during Treadmill Walking

Markerless Motion Capture Using Appearance and Inertial Data

A Direct Comparison of Biplanar Videoradiography and Optical Motion Capture for Foot and Ankle Kinematics

Markerless motion capture estimates of lower extremity kinematics and kinetics are comparable to marker-based across 8 movements

A Novel Method to Estimate the Full Knee Joint Kinematics Using Low Cost IMU Sensors for Easy to Implement Low Cost Diagnostics

Measuring highly accurate foot position and angle trajectories with foot-mounted IMUs in clinical practice