Human movement researchers are often restricted to laboratory environments and data capture techniques that are time and/or resource intensive. Markerless pose estimation algorithms show great potential to facilitate large scale movement studies ‘in the wild’, i.e., outside of the constraints imposed by marker-based motion capture. However, the accuracy of such algorithms has not yet been fully evaluated. We computed 3D joint centre locations using several pre-trained deep-learning based pose estimation methods (OpenPose, AlphaPose, DeepLabCut) and compared to marker-based motion capture. Participants performed walking, running and jumping activities while marker-based motion capture data and multi-camera high speed images (200 Hz) were captured. The pose estimation algorithms were applied to 2D image data and 3D joint centre locations were reconstructed. Pose estimation derived joint centres demonstrated systematic differences at the hip and knee (~ 30–50 mm), most likely due to mislabeling of ground truth data in the training datasets. Where systematic differences were lower, e.g., the ankle, differences of 1–15 mm were observed depending on the activity. Markerless motion capture represents a highly promising emerging technology that could free movement scientists from laboratory environments but 3D joint centre locations are not yet consistently comparable to marker-based motion capture.

Background Markerless motion capture has the potential to perform movement analysis with reduced data collection and processing time compared to marker-based methods. This technology is now starting to be applied for clinical and rehabilitation applications and therefore it is crucial that users of these systems understand both their potential and limitations. This literature review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the current state of markerless motion capture for both single camera and multi-camera systems. Additionally, this review explores how practical applications of markerless technology are being used in clinical and rehabilitation settings, and examines the future challenges and directions markerless research must explore to facilitate full integration of this technology within clinical biomechanics. Methodology A scoping review is needed to examine this emerging broad body of literature and determine where gaps in knowledge exist, this is key to developing motion capture methods that are cost effective and practically relevant to clinicians, coaches and researchers around the world. Literature searches were performed to examine studies that report accuracy of markerless motion capture methods, explore current practical applications of markerless motion capture methods in clinical biomechanics and identify gaps in our knowledge that are relevant to future developments in this area. Results Markerless methods increase motion capture data versatility, enabling datasets to be re-analyzed using updated pose estimation algorithms and may even provide clinicians with the capability to collect data while patients are wearing normal clothing. While markerless temporospatial measures generally appear to be equivalent to marker-based motion capture, joint center locations and joint angles are not yet sufficiently accurate for clinical applications. Pose estimation algorithms are approaching similar error rates of marker-based motion capture, however, without comparison to a gold standard, such as bi-planar videoradiography, the true accuracy of markerless systems remains unknown. Conclusions Current open-source pose estimation algorithms were never designed for biomechanical applications, therefore, datasets on which they have been trained are inconsistently and inaccurately labelled. Improvements to labelling of open-source training data, as well as assessment of markerless accuracy against gold standard methods will be vital next steps in the development of this technology.

The ability to accurately and non-invasively measure 3D mass centre positions and their derivatives can provide rich insight into the physical demands of sports training and competition. This study examines a method for non-invasively measuring mass centre velocities using markerless human pose estimation and Kalman smoothing. Marker (Qualysis) and markerless (OpenPose) motion capture data were captured synchronously for sprinting and skeleton push starts. Mass centre positions and velocities derived from raw markerless pose estimation data contained large errors for both sprinting and skeleton pushing (mean ± SD = 0.127 ± 0.943 and −0.197 ± 1.549 m·s−1, respectively). Signal processing methods such as Kalman smoothing substantially reduced the mean error (±SD) in horizontal mass centre velocities (0.041 ± 0.257 m·s−1) during sprinting but the precision remained poor. Applying pose estimation to activities which exhibit unusual body poses (e.g., skeleton pushing) appears to elicit more erroneous results due to poor performance of the pose estimation algorithm. Researchers and practitioners should apply these methods with caution to activities beyond sprinting as pose estimation algorithms may not generalise well to the activity of interest. Retraining the model using activity specific data to produce more specialised networks is therefore recommended.

No abstract

No abstract