Are Existing Monocular Computer Vision-Based 3D Motion Capture Approaches Ready for Deployment? A Methodological Study on the Example of Alpine Skiing

In this study, we compared a monocular computer vision (MCV)-based approach with the golden standard for collecting kinematic data on ski tracks (i.e., video-based stereophotogrammetry) and assessed its deployment readiness for answering applied research questions in the context of alpine skiing. Th...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Mirela Ostrek, Helge Rhodin, Pascal Fua, Erich Müller, Jörg Spörri
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: MDPI AG 2019-10-01
Series:Sensors
Subjects:
Online Access:https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/19/19/4323
Description
Summary:In this study, we compared a monocular computer vision (MCV)-based approach with the golden standard for collecting kinematic data on ski tracks (i.e., video-based stereophotogrammetry) and assessed its deployment readiness for answering applied research questions in the context of alpine skiing. The investigated MCV-based approach predicted the three-dimensional human pose and ski orientation based on the image data from a single camera. The data set used for training and testing the underlying deep nets originated from a field experiment with six competitive alpine skiers. The normalized mean per joint position error of the MVC-based approach was found to be 0.08 &#177; 0.01 m. Knee flexion showed an accuracy and precision (in parenthesis) of 0.4 &#177; 7.1&#176; (7.2 &#177; 1.5&#176;) for the outside leg, and &#8722;0.2 &#177; 5.0&#176; (6.7 &#177; 1.1&#176;) for the inside leg. For hip flexion, the corresponding values were &#8722;0.4 &#177; 6.1&#176; (4.4&#176; &#177; 1.5&#176;) and &#8722;0.7 &#177; 4.7&#176; (3.7 &#177; 1.0&#176;), respectively. The accuracy and precision of skiing-related metrics were revealed to be 0.03 &#177; 0.01 m (0.01 &#177; 0.00 m) for relative center of mass position, &#8722;0.1 &#177; 3.8&#176; (3.4 &#177; 0.9) for lean angle, 0.01 &#177; 0.03 m (0.02 &#177; 0.01 m) for center of mass to outside ankle distance, 0.01 &#177; 0.05 m (0.03 &#177; 0.01 m) for fore/aft position, and 0.00 &#177; 0.01 m<sup>2</sup> (0.01 &#177; 0.00 m<sup>2</sup>) for drag area. Such magnitudes can be considered acceptable for detecting relevant differences in the context of alpine skiing.
ISSN:1424-8220