Infrared 3D Postural Assessment: A Comparative Analysis Of Recommended Versus Preferred Clothing Conditions

The 3D body scanner assesses body composition and posture using infrared cameras capturing height and neck to ankle circumference, shift, and tilt measurements. Users must remove loose clothing and wear snug boxer briefs, underwear, and/or sports bras for accurate body composition assessment. However, to evaluate posture, users are instructed to have eyes and ears visible to the cameras. Some individuals are unable and unwilling to follow the clothing requirements, therefore it is worthwhile to investigate the utility of the 3D body scanner for posture assessment alone. If posture is assessed accurately in the users’ preferred clothing, it can increase opportunities to use the body scanner in a wider population and provide a better user experience. PURPOSE: Compare posture assessment outcomes using the 3D body scanner under two conditions: recommended clothing guidelines versus preferred clothing. METHODS: Volunteers 18 years and older able to stand in an upright posture were recruited. Participants completed scans under two conditions in the same session, wearing clothing consistent with the manufacturer’s guidelines in the first scan and preferred clothing for the second scan. Only posture outcomes were used for analysis, including front/back shift (in), tilt (%), and side shift (in). Since data were not normally distributed, Wilcoxon Signed Rank tests assessed differences between the scans. RESULTS: Thirty-nine participants completed scans (19 male, 20 female; age 25.8 ± 8.2 yr; BMI 26.8 ± 5.4 kg/m2). No differences were observed in front/back head (z = 1.77; p = 0.077), shoulder (z = 0.41; p = 0.68), hip (z = 0.00; p = 1.00), and knee (z = 0.41; p = 0.68) shift or shoulder (z = 1.35; p = 0.18), hip (z = -0.73; p = 0.47), and knee (z = 0.45; p = 0.66) tilt. Similarly, no differences were observed in side head (z = -0.37; p = 0.72), shoulder (z = 1.60; p = 0.11), hip (z = -0.14; p = 0.89), and knee (z = 0.81; p = 0.42) shift. There was a significant difference observed in front/back head (p = 0.04; z = 2.03) tilt which can be explained by head posture variability. CONCLUSIONS: There were no significant differences in postural scans between recommended clothing guidelines versus participants’ preferred clothing. This information should be considered by professionals conducting scans to maximize user comfort and respect cultural beliefs.