Assessing Spatiotemporal Behavior of Human Gait: A Comparative Study Between Low-Cost Smartphone-Based Mocap and OptiTrack Systems

• Published in: Experimental techniques (Westport, Conn.)
• Main Authors: Castillo, B., Riascos, C., Franco, J. M., Marulanda, J., Thomson, P.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: 13.05.2024
• ISSN: 0732-8818; 1747-1567
• DOI: 10.1007/s40799-024-00716-x

Abstract This study assessed the accuracy of a low-cost marker-based motion capture system with smartphone devices to estimate the spatiotemporal behavior of human gait in comparison with the performance of the commercial OptiTrack system. Initially, three test subjects were selected for the study, and after equipping them with passive retroreflective markers, they were recorded for gait velocities of 1.50, 1.90, and 2.30 $$m\bullet {s}^{-1}$$ m ∙ s - 1 while collecting kinematic data and videos. The results showed that the smartphone motion capture system exhibited significant spatiotemporal tracking and accuracy in the x-y trajectories and estimation of joint relative angles of the hip, knee, and ankle joints (θ 1 , θ 2 , and θ 3 , respectively) compared to the commercial OptiTrack system. In this comparison, an average goodness-of-FIT and normalized root mean square error of over 88.93% and 2.71% were obtained, respectively, for the joint relative angles of the hip and knee (θ 1 and θ2) in all tests performed. However, the accuracy of the joint relative angle of the ankle (θ3, average FIT: 71.04% and nRMSE: 4.26%) was lower because of the low capture rate of the retroreflective markers in the smartphone system and the higher relative velocity in the lower extremities of the test subjects, which generated noise in the calculation of x-y trajectories. This decrease in accuracy has been reported in other studies. However, both motion capture systems experienced marker data loss at the hip, highlighting the need for improvement in the spatial distribution of the optical devices. The OptiTrack system demonstrated better optical redundancy but still required improvements. In contrast, the smartphone system, with its inherent limitations in terms of optical redundancy and spatial distribution, can be enhanced by incorporating multiple cameras for a three-dimensional view. Despite these limitations, the low-cost smartphone system showed optimal performance with minimal errors compared with the commercial system, making it a cost-effective option with potential for further development. The rapid advancement of smartphone technology and its accessibility make it an attractive choice for motion capture applications.