Skip to main content

The influence of different pelvic technical marker sets upon hip kinematics during gait

Citations of this article
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text


Background: The pelvis is commonly tracked during three-dimensional motion analysis using markers located on the anterior and posterior superior iliac spines. However, these markers are prone to soft tissue artefact and marker occlusion, highlighting the need for alternative technical marker sets. Research question: How comparable are hip joint kinematics calculated using two alternative pelvic technical marker sets and a conventionally modelled pelvis? Methods: Fourteen participants undertook 3D gait analysis, walking overground at a self-selected pace (1.38 ± 0.14 m·s −1 ), barefoot. Hip joint kinematics were compared using root mean square error (RMSE) between a conventionally tracked pelvis and two alternative technical marker sets; (1) posterior cluster and (2) additional iliac crest markers. Results: The average RMSE in the sagittal, frontal and transverse planes was 2.5° ± 2.8°, 1.6° ± 0.4° and 0.8° ± 0.4°, respectively for the posterior cluster, and 1.3° ± 0.7°, 0.8° ± 0.3° and 1.4° ± 0.5° for the iliac crest marker set. The RMSE was significantly larger for the posterior cluster compared to the iliac crest model in the sagittal (p =.05, d =.28) and frontal planes (p




Langley, B., Page, R., & Greig, M. (2019). The influence of different pelvic technical marker sets upon hip kinematics during gait. Gait and Posture, 71, 74–78.

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free