Salvato in:
| Autori principali: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Natura: | Preprint |
| Pubblicazione: |
2025
|
| Soggetti: | |
| Accesso online: | https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.17805 |
| Tags: |
Aggiungi Tag
Nessun Tag, puoi essere il primo ad aggiungerne!!
|
| _version_ | 1866918145644560384 |
|---|---|
| author | Chen, Dong Peng, Huili Hu, Yong Cheung, Kenneth MC. |
| author_facet | Chen, Dong Peng, Huili Hu, Yong Cheung, Kenneth MC. |
| contents | Objective: To systematically quantify the effect of the camera view (frontal vs. lateral) on the accuracy of 2D markerless gait analysis relative to 3D motion capture ground truth. Methods: Gait data from 18 subjects were recorded simultaneously using frontal, lateral and 3D motion capture systems. Pose estimation used YOLOv8. Four metrics were assessed to evaluate agreement: Dynamic Time Warping (DTW) for temporal alignment, Maximum Cross-Correlation (MCC) for signal similarity, Kullback-Leibler Divergence (KLD) for distribution differences, and Information Entropy (IE) for complexity. Wilcoxon signed-rank tests (significance: $p < 0.05$) and Cliff's delta ($δ$) were used to measure statistical differences and effect sizes. Results: Lateral views significantly outperformed frontal views for sagittal plane kinematics: step length (DTW: $53.08 \pm 24.50$ vs. $69.87 \pm 25.36$, $p = 0.005$) and knee rotation (DTW: $106.46 \pm 38.57$ vs. $155.41 \pm 41.77$, $p = 0.004$). Frontal views were superior for symmetry parameters: trunk rotation (KLD: $0.09 \pm 0.06$ vs. $0.30 \pm 0.19$, $p < 0.001$) and wrist-to-hipmid distance (MCC: $105.77 \pm 29.72$ vs. $75.20 \pm 20.38$, $p = 0.003$). Effect sizes were medium-to-large ($δ: 0.34$--$0.76$). Conclusion: Camera view critically impacts gait parameter accuracy. Lateral views are optimal for sagittal kinematics; frontal views excel for trunk symmetry. Significance: This first systematic evidence enables data-driven camera deployment in 2D gait analysis, enhancing clinical utility. Future implementations should leverage both views via disease-oriented setups. |
| format | Preprint |
| id |
arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2509_17805 |
| institution | arXiv |
| publishDate | 2025 |
| record_format | arxiv |
| spellingShingle | Selecting Optimal Camera Views for Gait Analysis: A Multi-Metric Assessment of 2D Projections Chen, Dong Peng, Huili Hu, Yong Cheung, Kenneth MC. Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Objective: To systematically quantify the effect of the camera view (frontal vs. lateral) on the accuracy of 2D markerless gait analysis relative to 3D motion capture ground truth. Methods: Gait data from 18 subjects were recorded simultaneously using frontal, lateral and 3D motion capture systems. Pose estimation used YOLOv8. Four metrics were assessed to evaluate agreement: Dynamic Time Warping (DTW) for temporal alignment, Maximum Cross-Correlation (MCC) for signal similarity, Kullback-Leibler Divergence (KLD) for distribution differences, and Information Entropy (IE) for complexity. Wilcoxon signed-rank tests (significance: $p < 0.05$) and Cliff's delta ($δ$) were used to measure statistical differences and effect sizes. Results: Lateral views significantly outperformed frontal views for sagittal plane kinematics: step length (DTW: $53.08 \pm 24.50$ vs. $69.87 \pm 25.36$, $p = 0.005$) and knee rotation (DTW: $106.46 \pm 38.57$ vs. $155.41 \pm 41.77$, $p = 0.004$). Frontal views were superior for symmetry parameters: trunk rotation (KLD: $0.09 \pm 0.06$ vs. $0.30 \pm 0.19$, $p < 0.001$) and wrist-to-hipmid distance (MCC: $105.77 \pm 29.72$ vs. $75.20 \pm 20.38$, $p = 0.003$). Effect sizes were medium-to-large ($δ: 0.34$--$0.76$). Conclusion: Camera view critically impacts gait parameter accuracy. Lateral views are optimal for sagittal kinematics; frontal views excel for trunk symmetry. Significance: This first systematic evidence enables data-driven camera deployment in 2D gait analysis, enhancing clinical utility. Future implementations should leverage both views via disease-oriented setups. |
| title | Selecting Optimal Camera Views for Gait Analysis: A Multi-Metric Assessment of 2D Projections |
| topic | Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition |
| url | https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.17805 |