Effect of position on precision within the recording field of a markerless motion capture system

Introduction Markerless motion capture systems are relatively new devices that can significantly speed up capturing full body motion. A precision of the assessment of the finger’s position with this type of equipment was evaluated at 17.30 ± 9.56 mm when compare to an active marker system [1]. The Microsoft Kinect was proposed to standardized and enhanced clinical evaluation of patients with hemiplegic cerebral palsy [2]. Markerless motion capture systems have the potential to be used in a clinical setting for movement analysis, as well as for large cohort research. However, the precision of such system needs to be characterized. Global objectives • To assess the precision within the recording field of the markerless motion capture system Openstage 2 (Organic Motion, NY). • To compare the markerless motion capture system with an optoelectric motion capture system with active markers. Specific objectives • To assess the noise of a static body at 13 different location within the recording field of the markerless motion capture system. • To assess the smallest oscillation detected by the markerless motion capture system. • To assess the difference between both systems regarding the body joint angle measurement. Methods Equipment • OpenStage® 2 (Organic Motion, NY) o Markerless motion capture system o 16 video cameras (acquisition rate : 60Hz) o Recording zone : 4m * 5m * 2.4m (depth * width * height) o Provide position and angle of 23 different body segments • VisualeyezTM VZ4000 (PhoeniX Technologies Incorporated, BC) o Optoelectric motion capture system with active markers o 4 trackers system (total of 12 cameras) o Accuracy : 0.5~0.7mm Protocol & Analysis • Static noise: o Motion recording of an humanoid mannequin was done in 13 different locations o RMSE was calculated for each segment in each location • Smallest oscillation detected: o Small oscillations were induced to the humanoid mannequin and motion was recorded until it stopped. o Correlation between the displacement of the head recorded by both systems was measured. A corresponding magnitude was also measured. • Body joints angle: o Body motion was recorded simultaneously with both systems (left side only). o 6 participants (3 females; 32.7 ± 9.4 years old) • Tasks: Walk, Squat, Shoulder flexion & abduction, Elbow flexion, Wrist extension, Pronation / supination (not in results), Head flexion & rotation (not in results), Leg rotation (not in results), Trunk rotation (not in results) o Several body joint angles were measured with both systems. o RMSE was calculated between signals of both systems. Results Conclusion Results show that the Organic Motion markerless system has the potential to be used for assessment of clinical motor symptoms or motor performances However, the following points should be considered: • Precision of the Openstage system varied within the recording field. • Precision is not constant between limb segments. • The error seems to be higher close to the range of motion extremities.

Reproducibility of scratch assays is affected by the initial degree of confluence: Experiments, modelling and model selection

Scratch assays are difficult to reproduce. Here we identify a previously overlooked source of variability which could partially explain this difficulty. We analyse a suite of scratch assays in which we vary the initial degree of confluence (initial cell density). Our results indicate that the rate of re-colonisation is very sensitive to the initial density. To quantify the relative roles of cell migration and proliferation, we calibrate the solution of the Fisher–Kolmogorov model to cell density profiles to provide estimates of the cell diffusivity, D, and the cell proliferation rate, λ. This procedure indicates that the estimates of D and λ are very sensitive to the initial density. This dependence suggests that the Fisher–Kolmogorov model does not accurately represent the details of the collective cell spreading process, since this model assumes that D and λ are constants that ought to be independent of the initial density. Since higher initial cell density leads to enhanced spreading, we also calibrate the solution of the Porous–Fisher model to the data as this model assumes that the cell flux is an increasing function of the cell density. Estimates of D and λ associated with the Porous–Fisher model are less sensitive to the initial density, suggesting that the Porous–Fisher model provides a better description of the experiments.