Abstract:Introduction Three-dimensional motion capture is commonly used to analyse gait. This typically involves infra-red cameras and accurate placement of reflective markers on anatomical landmarks. Minimal clothing is required so that markers can be placed on the skin without obstruction. Recent advances in markerless motion capture mean that markers are no longer required, and gait kinematics can be estimated when fully clothed. As markerless motion capture identifies landmarks from which participants’ pose can be estimated, the type of clothing worn (Sports vs regular wear) can cause differences in gait kinematics of 1.4-4.2° [1]. Possible differences in gait kinematics between tight-fitting and loose-fitting clothing are not known. Research question How does tight or loose-fitting clothing affect markerless gait kinematics? Methods Ten unimpaired adults (18-35 years of age, five females and five males) with average body-mass-index (BMI) of 22.92 ± 1.42 (SD) kgm− 2 took part. They completed five self-paced walking trials in two clothing conditions. Clothing was either tight-fitting sports attire (knees and elbows exposed) or self-selected loose-fitting regular wear (long trousers, hip length and long-sleeved top) with their own shoes for both conditions. Seven Miqus video cameras (Qualisys, Gothenburg, Sweden) were used to capture the gait trials, and pose was estimated using Theia3D software (Theia Markerless Inc.,v2022.1.0.2309). Visual3D (C-Motion, USA) was used to calculate the gait events and kinematics [2]. Pelvic, hip, knee and ankle kinematics for both clothing conditions were compared throughout the gait cycle using the root mean square difference (RMSD). Results The joint kinematics had similar patterns across all joints and planes. The RMSD ranged from 0.81° for pelvic tilt to 1.86° for knee rotation (Fig. 1). Fig. 1: Mean joint kinematics and RMSD for the pelvic, hip, knee and ankle in the sagittal (X), frontal (Y) and transverse (Z) planes. Red represents tight-fitting and blue represents loose-fitting. Discussion All RMSD values observed between clothing conditions were <2° which is less than half of the magnitude of the differences found in a similar study where the average RMSD values were 2.6 [1]. This is however still 1-2 times greater than inter-session differences we have observed with the same loose-fitting clothing condition [3]. The higher difference between hip angle (X:1.58°, Y:1.5°, Z:1.39°) for loose-fitting clothing may be due to the challenges of identifying the hip joint centre due to the long trousers and overlapping clothing. Gait analysis with regular clothing has several benefits one of which is a reduced Hawthorne effect. This effect could be significant in children, who may be more prone to change their walking patterns while in an unusual set of clothing. Whether these results extend to gait analysis in children remains to be determined.

The effects of tight or loose-fitting clothing on markerless gait kinematics in adults

Comparison of Concurrent and Asynchronous Running Kinematics and Kinetics From Marker-Based and Markerless Motion Capture Under Varying Clothing Conditions

Center of Mass Affect Joint Kinetics Estimated by Markerless and Marker-based Systems During Running

Absolute Reliability of Gait Parameters Acquired With Markerless Motion Capture in Living Domains

Differences between lower extremity joint running kinetics captured by marker-based and markerless systems were speed dependent

Repeatability and minimal detectable change including clothing effects for smartphone-based 3D markerless motion capture

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

Running Speed Exacerbates Lower Extremity Joint Moment and Power Differences Estimated by Marker-Based and Markerless Motion Capture Systems

Wearing an ultrasound probe during walking does not influence lower limb joint kinematics in adolescents with cerebral palsy and typically developing peers

The accuracy of markerless motion capture combined with computer vision techniques for measuring running kinematics

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

The use of preferred footwear versus barefoot conditions in gait analysis: A methodological investigation

Gait kinematics differ by bout duration and setting

Comparison of instantaneous knee kinematics during walking and running.

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

Accuracy, Validity, and Reliability of Markerless Camera-Based 3D Motion Capture Systems versus Marker-Based 3D Motion Capture Systems in Gait Analysis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Markerless three-dimensional gait analysis in healthy older adults: test-retest reliability and measurement error

The effect of knee braces on knee joint kinematics at different exercise speeds

Markerless gait analysis through a single camera and computer vision

Validation of Markerless Motion Capture for Soldier Movement Patterns Assessment Under Varying Body-Borne Loads

Comparison of kinematics between Theia markerless and conventional marker-based gait analysis in clinical patients