Evaluation of the Ergomechanic Markerless Motion Capture System for Lower Body Kinematics During Standing, Squatting, and Walking

Markerless motion capture (MMC) shows promise for examining human movement across many domains because of its nonintrusive nature and negligible per-subject setup time. However, published MMC systems typically require specific hardware. This validation study compared lower-body joint kinematics from Ergomechanic, a hardware-agnostic pose model-based MMC system, to an established marker-based motion capture (MBMC) system. Static trial data from eighteen people were used to register MMC keypoints within a widely used musculoskeletal model. The registered model was used to calculate joint kinematics for static pose, squatting, and walking trials. A novel perturbation analysis estimated the contributions to differences in MBMC and MMC approaches to measurement disparities. Very good (0.87-1.0) correlations between the systems were calculated for ankle, knee, and hip flexion-extension angles. Good (0.70-0.86) correlations were found for hip external-internal and abduction-adduction. Pelvis and lumbar spine angles had a wider range of correlation results (-0.06 to 0.95), likely due to the few MMC keypoints in these body regions. Relative contributions from the perturbation analysis were (i) 75% from variations in MMC data relative to MBMC; (ii) 8% because MMC keypoints (26) < MBMC markers (67); and (iii) 3% from differences in musculoskeletal model scaling. These results validate Ergomechanic for leg kinematics during standing, walking, and squatting. Further, they suggest system improvements for pelvis and torso kinematics and provide new insights into the sources of known differences between MMC and MBMC measurements.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Biomechanical Engineering
Published
2025-09-19
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4069821
Primary Topic
Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Evaluation of the Ergomechanic Markerless Motion Capture System for Lower Body Kinematics During Standing, Squatting, and Walking

Denny Oetomo, Phu Trinh, Tomislav Baček, Scott Starkey et al.
Journal of Biomechanical Engineering
Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
article

Evaluation of the Ergomechanic Markerless Motion Capture System for Lower Body Kinematics During Standing, Squatting, and Walking

Denny Oetomo, Phu Trinh, Tomislav Baček, Scott Starkey, E‐Nae Cheong, Simon M. Harrison, Khoi Nguyen, Jayan Greenwood, Raymond C.Z. Cohen
article en

Abstract

Markerless motion capture (MMC) shows promise for examining human movement across many domains because of its nonintrusive nature and negligible per-subject setup time. However, published MMC systems typically require specific hardware. This validation study compared lower-body joint kinematics from Ergomechanic, a hardware-agnostic pose model-based MMC system, to an established marker-based motion capture (MBMC) system. Static trial data from eighteen people were used to register MMC keypoints within a widely used musculoskeletal model. The registered model was used to calculate joint kinematics for static pose, squatting, and walking trials. A novel perturbation analysis estimated the contributions to differences in MBMC and MMC approaches to measurement disparities. Very good (0.87-1.0) correlations between the systems were calculated for ankle, knee, and hip flexion-extension angles. Good (0.70-0.86) correlations were found for hip external-internal and abduction-adduction. Pelvis and lumbar spine angles had a wider range of correlation results (-0.06 to 0.95), likely due to the few MMC keypoints in these body regions. Relative contributions from the perturbation analysis were (i) 75% from variations in MMC data relative to MBMC; (ii) 8% because MMC keypoints (26) < MBMC markers (67); and (iii) 3% from differences in musculoskeletal model scaling. These results validate Ergomechanic for leg kinematics during standing, walking, and squatting. Further, they suggest system improvements for pelvis and torso kinematics and provide new insights into the sources of known differences between MMC and MBMC measurements.

Journal of Biomechanical EngineeringVol. 147(12)
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (AU), The University of Melbourne (AU), CSIRO Manufacturing (AU), Data61 (AU)
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation
Openalex Percentile: Top 71%
Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.