Comparison of Marker-Based and Markerless Motion Capture Systems for Measuring Throwing Kinematics

Abstract

Background: Marker-based motion capture systems are commonly used for three-dimensional movement analysis in sports. Novel, markerless motion capture systems enable the collection of comparable data under more time-efficient conditions with higher flexibility and fewer restrictions for the athletes during movement execution. Studies show comparable results between markerless and marker-based systems for kinematics of the lower extremities, especially for walking gait. For more complex movements, such as throwing, limited data on the agreement of markerless and marker-based systems is available. The aim of this study is to compare the outcome of a video-based markerless motion capture system with a marker-based approach during an artificial basketball-throwing task. Methods: Thirteen subjects performed five simulated basketball throws under laboratory conditions, and were recorded simultaneously with the marker-based measurement system, as well as two versions of a markerless measurement system (differing in their release date). Knee, hip, shoulder, elbow and wrist joint angles were acquired and root mean square distance (RMSD) was calculated for all subjects, parameters and attempts. Results: The RMSD of all joint angles of the marker-based and markerless systems ranged from 7.17° ± 3.88° to 26.66° ± 14.77° depended on the joint. The newest version of the markerless system showed lower RMSD values compared to the older version, with an RMSD of 16.68 ± 5.03° for elbow flexion, capturing 93.84% of the data’s RMSD of 22.22 ± 5.52, accounting for 87.69% of the data. While both versions showed similar results for right knee flexion, lower differences were observed in the new version for right hip flexion, with an RMSD of 8.17 ± 3.75 compared to the older version’s 13.24 ± 5.78. Additionally, the new version demonstrated lower RMSD values for right hand flexion. Conclusions: Overall, the new version of the markerless system showed lower RMSD values across various joint angles during throwing movement analysis compared to the older version. However, the differences between markerless and marker-based systems are especially large for the upper extremities. In conclusion, it is not clearly explainable if the detected inter-system differences are due to inaccuracies of one system or the other, or a combination of both, as both methodologies possess special limitations (soft tissue vibration or joint center position accuracy). Further investigations are needed to clarify the accordance between markerless and marker-based motion capture systems during complex movements.