Accuracy measurement of different marker based motion analysis systems for biomechanical applications: A round robin study

Abstract

Introduction Multiple camera systems are widely used for 3D-motion analysis. Due to increasing accuracies these camera systems gained interest in biomechanical research areas, where high precision measurements are desirable. In the current study different measurement systems were compared regarding their measurement accuracy. Materials and methods Translational and rotational accuracy measurements as well as the zero offset measurements of seven different measurement systems were performed using two reference devices and two different evaluation algorithms. All measurements were performed in the same room with constant temperature at the same laboratory. Equal positions were measured with the systems according to a standardized protocol. Measurement errors were determined and compared. Results The highest measurement errors were seen for a measurement system using active ultrasonic markers, followed by another active marker measurement system (infrared) having measurement errors up to several hundred micrometers. The highest accuracies were achieved by three stereo camera systems, using passive 2D marker points having errors typically below 20 μm. Conclusions This study can help to better assess the results obtained with different measurement systems. With the focus on the measurement accuracy, only one aspect in the selection of a system was considered. Depending on the requirements of the user, other factors like measurement frequency, the maximum analyzable volume, the marker type or the costs are important factors as well.

Anterior variable-angle locked plating versus tension band wiring of simple and complex patella fractures – a biomechanical investigation

“…Machine data in terms of actuator displacement and pulling force were collected from the test system controllers at 128 Hz. In addition, two optical cameras (Aramis SRX, GOM GmbH, Braunschweig, Germany) continuously recorded the marker positions for motion tracking, operating at resolution of 12 megapixel and a maximum acceptance error of 0.004–0.02 mm [ 24 , 25 ]. Interfragmentary movements were evaluated at the initial stage after 50 loading cycles and then after 1000, 2000, 3000, 4000 and 5000 cycles as follows.…”

Strength of the taper junction of modular revision hip stems

“…Während der Belastung wurde die Relativbewegung an der Konusverbindung zwischen den beiden Komponenten mit einem digitalen Bildkorrelationssystem (DIC) alle 300 s für 10 s (12 Messintervalle) sowie initial 30 s nach Start der Testung berührungslos erfasst (Aramis 3D, MV 100, GOM, Braunschweig, Deutschland; Auflösung 2752 × 2200 Pixel, Messgenauigkeit 0,01 Pixel [Optimierter Kalibrierfehler analog zu [ 17 ]], Messvolumen: 100 × 80 × 50 mm 3 , Bildwiederholungsrate: 25 Hz). Hierfür wurden kreisförmige Klebemarkierungen (Ø 0,4 mm) auf der lateralen Seite der beiden Implantatkomponenten angebracht.…”

Fragment size of lateral Hoffa fractures determines screw fixation trajectory: a human cadaveric cohort study

“…An optical motion tracking system (Aramis SRX, Carl Zeiss GOM Metrology GmbH, Braunschweig, Germany), operating at a maximum acceptance error of 0.004 mm [18], was used to capture the 3-dimensional coordinates of the markers and evaluate the interfragmentary movements in all 6 degrees of freedom at the initial stage and thereafter at 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, and 5.0 kilocycles under peak loading conditions with respect to the beginning of the test. Specifically, fracture site displacement along the femoral shaft axis-defined as axial displacement-was captured at the most articular margin of the Hoffa fragment and the vertical osteotomy plane.…”