Agreement Between Spatiotemporal Gait Parameters Measured by a Markerless Motion Capture System and Two Reference Systems-a Treadmill-Based Photoelectric Cell and High-Speed Video Analyses: Comparative Study

Level of Agreement between the MotionMetrix System and an Optoelectronic Motion Capture System for Walking and Running Gait Measurements

Markerless motion capture systems (MCS) have been developed as an alternative solution to overcome the limitations of 3D MCS as they provide a more practical and efficient setup process given, among other factors, the lack of sensors attached to the body. However, this might affect the accuracy of the measures recorded. Thus, this study is aimed at evaluating the level of agreement between a markerless MSC (i.e., MotionMetrix) and an optoelectronic MCS (i.e., Qualisys). For such purpose, 24 healthy young adults were assessed for walking (at 5 km/h) and running (at 10 and 15 km/h) in a single session. The parameters obtained from MotionMetrix and Qualisys were tested in terms of level of agreement. When walking at 5 km/h, the MotionMetrix system significantly underestimated the stance and swing phases, as well as the load and pre-swing phases (p < 0.05) reporting also relatively low systematic bias (i.e., ≤ -0.03 s) and standard error of the estimate (SEE) (i.e., ≤0.02 s). The level of agreement between measurements was perfect (r > 0.9) for step length left and cadence and very large (r > 0.7) for step time left, gait cycle, and stride length. Regarding running at 10 km/h, bias and SEE analysis revealed significant differences for most of the variables except for stride time, rate and length, swing knee flexion for both legs, and thigh flexion left. The level of agreement between measurements was very large (r > 0.7) for stride time and rate, stride length, and vertical displacement. At 15 km/h, bias and SEE revealed significant differences for vertical displacement, landing knee flexion for both legs, stance knee flexion left, thigh flexion, and extension for both legs. The level of agreement between measurements in running at 15 km/h was almost perfect (r > 0.9) when comparing Qualisys and MotionMetrix parameters for stride time and rate, and stride length. The agreement between the two motion capture systems varied for different variables and speeds of locomotion, with some variables demonstrating high agreement while others showed poor agreement. Nonetheless, the findings presented here suggest that the MotionMetrix system is a promising option for sports practitioners and clinicians interested in measuring gait variables, particularly in the contexts examined in the study.

Internet-of-Things-Enabled Markerless Running Gait Assessment from a Single Smartphone Camera

Running gait assessment is essential for the development of technical optimization strategies as well as to inform injury prevention and rehabilitation. Currently, running gait assessment relies on (i) visual assessment, exhibiting subjectivity and limited reliability, or (ii) use of instrumented approaches, which often carry high costs and can be intrusive due to the attachment of equipment to the body. Here, the use of an IoT-enabled markerless computer vision smartphone application based upon Google’s pose estimation model BlazePose was evaluated for running gait assessment for use in low-resource settings. That human pose estimation architecture was used to extract contact time, swing time, step time, knee flexion angle, and foot strike location from a large cohort of runners. The gold-standard Vicon 3D motion capture system was used as a reference. The proposed approach performs robustly, demonstrating good (ICC(2,1) > 0.75) to excellent (ICC(2,1) > 0.90) agreement in all running gait outcomes. Additionally, temporal outcomes exhibit low mean error (0.01−0.014 s) in left foot outcomes. However, there are some discrepancies in right foot outcomes, due to occlusion. This study demonstrates that the proposed low-cost and markerless system provides accurate running gait assessment outcomes. The approach may help routine running gait assessment in low-resource environments.

Test-Retest Reliability of the MotionMetrix Software for the Analysis of Walking and Running Gait Parameters

The use of markerless motion capture systems is becoming more popular for walking and running analysis given their user-friendliness and their time efficiency but in some cases their validity is uncertain. Here, the test-retest reliability of the MotionMetrix software combined with the use of Kinect sensors is tested with 24 healthy volunteers for walking (at 5 km·h−1) and running (at 10 and 15 km·h−1) gait analysis in two different trials. All the parameters given by the MotionMetrix software for both walking and running gait analysis are tested in terms of reliability. No significant differences (p > 0.05) were found for walking gait parameters between both trials except for the phases of loading response and double support, and the spatiotemporal parameters of step length and step frequency. Additionally, all the parameters exhibit acceptable reliability (CV < 10%) but step width (CV > 10%). When analyzing running gait, although the parameters here tested exhibited different reliability values at 10 km·h−1, the system provided reliable measurements for most of the kinematic and kinetic parameters (CV < 10%) when running at 15 km·h−1. Overall, the results obtained show that, although some variables must be interpreted with caution, the Kinect + MotionMetrix system may be useful for walking and running gait analysis. Nevertheless, the validity still needs to be determined against a gold standard system to fully trust this technology and software combination.

Quantitative and Qualitative Running Gait Analysis through an Innovative Video-Based Approach

Quantitative and qualitative running gait analysis allows the early identification and the longitudinal monitoring of gait abnormalities linked to running-related injuries. A promising calibration- and marker-less video sensor-based technology (i.e., Graal), recently validated for walking gait, may also offer a time- and cost-efficient alternative to the gold-standard methods for running. This study aim was to ascertain the validity of an improved version of Graal for quantitative and qualitative analysis of running. In 33 healthy recreational runners (mean age 41 years), treadmill running at self-selected submaximal speed was simultaneously evaluated by a validated photosensor system (i.e., Optogait—the reference methodology) and by the video analysis of a posterior 30-fps video of the runner through the optimized version of Graal. Graal is video analysis software that provides a spectral analysis of the brightness over time for each pixel of the video, in order to identify its frequency contents. The two main frequencies of variation of the pixel’s brightness (i.e., F1 and F2) correspond to the two most important frequencies of gait (i.e., stride frequency and cadence). The Optogait system recorded step length, cadence, and its variability (vCAD, a traditional index of gait quality). Graal provided a direct measurement of F2 (reflecting cadence), an indirect measure of step length, and two indexes of global gait quality (harmony and synchrony index). The correspondence between quantitative indexes (Cadence vs. F2 and step length vs. Graal step length) was tested via paired t-test, correlations, and Bland–Altman plots. The relationship between qualitative indexes (vCAD vs. Harmony and Synchrony Index) was investigated by correlation analysis. Cadence and step length were, respectively, not significantly different from and highly correlated with F2 (1.41 Hz ± 0.09 Hz vs. 1.42 Hz ± 0.08 Hz, p = 0.25, r² = 0.81) and Graal step length (104.70 cm ± 013.27 cm vs. 107.56 cm ± 13.67 cm, p = 0.55, r² = 0.98). Bland–Altman tests confirmed a non-significant bias and small imprecision between methods for both parameters. The vCAD was 1.84% ± 0.66%, and it was significantly correlated with neither the Harmony nor the Synchrony Index (0.21 ± 0.03, p = 0.92, r² = 0.00038; 0.21 ± 0.96, p = 0.87, r² = 0.00122). These findings confirm the validity of the optimized version of Graal for the measurement of quantitative indexes of gait. Hence, Graal constitutes an extremely time- and cost-efficient tool suitable for quantitative analysis of running. However, its validity for qualitative running gait analysis remains inconclusive and will require further evaluation in a wider range of absolute and relative running intensities in different individuals.