Validation of a Commercially Available Markerless Motion-Capture System for Trunk and Lower Extremity Kinematics During a Jump-Landing Assessment

Context Field-based, portable motion-capture systems can be used to help identify individuals at greater risk of lower extremity injury. Microsoft Kinect-based markerless motion-capture systems meet these requirements; however, until recently, these systems were generally not automated, required substantial data postprocessing, and were not commercially available. Objective To validate the kinematic measures of a commercially available markerless motion-capture system. Design Descriptive laboratory study. Setting Laboratory. Patients or Other Participants A total of 20 healthy, physically active university students (10 males, 10 females; age = 20.50 ± 2.78 years, height = 170.36 ± 9.82 cm, mass = 68.38 ± 10.07 kg, body mass index = 23.50 ± 2.40 kg/m2). Intervention(s) Participants completed 5 jump-landing trials. Kinematic data were simultaneously recorded using Kinect-based markerless and stereophotogrammetric motion-capture systems. Main Outcome Measure(s) Sagittal- and frontal-plane trunk, hip-joint, and knee-joint angles were identified at initial ground contact of the jump landing (IC), for the maximum joint angle during the landing phase of the initial landing (MAX), and for the joint-angle displacement from IC to MAX (DSP). Outliers were removed, and data were averaged across trials. We used intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs [2,1]) to assess intersystem reliability and the paired-samples t test to examine mean differences (α ≤ .05). Results Agreement existed between the systems (ICC range = −1.52 to 0.96; ICC average = 0.58), with 75.00% (n = 24/32) of the measures being validated (P ≤ .05). Agreement was better for sagittal- (ICC average = 0.84) than frontal- (ICC average = 0.35) plane measures. Agreement was best for MAX (ICC average = 0.77) compared with IC (ICC average = 0.56) and DSP (ICC average = 0.41) measures. Pairwise comparisons identified differences for 18.75% (6/32) of the measures. Fewer differences were observed for sagittal- (0.00%; 0/15) than for frontal- (35.29%; 6/17) plane measures. Between-systems differences were equivalent for MAX (18.18%; 2/11), DSP (18.18%; 2/11), and IC (20.00%; 2/10) measures. The markerless system underestimated sagittal-plane measures (86.67%; 13/15) and overestimated frontal-plane measures (76.47%; 13/17). No trends were observed for overestimating or underestimating IC, MAX, or DSP measures. Conclusions Moderate agreement existed between markerless and stereophotogrammetric motion-capture systems. Better agreement existed for larger (eg, sagittal-plane, MAX) than for smaller (eg, frontal-plane, IC) joint angles. The DSP angles had the worst agreement. Markerless motion-capture systems may help clinicians identify individuals at greater risk of lower extremity injury.