3D Dynamic Probabilistic Pose Estimation from Data Collected Using Cameras and Reflective Markers

Reference work entry

Abstract

Position and orientation (Pose) estimations of the human body during motion that are derived from data collected using any marker-based camera system have inherent errors related to a combination of measurement noise, soft tissue artifact (STA), and inaccuracies due to incorrect marker placement. Individually, and in combination, these errors reduce the overall accuracy of marker-based Pose estimation. Optimization and multibody dynamics methods have been formulated to reduce these errors. However it has been argued that uncertainty in data, such as that caused by sensor noise, soft tissue deformation, marker movement, or inaccurate marker placement, cannot be directly accounted for using traditional deterministic approaches. We postulate that uncertainty can be more appropriately addressed by casting the Pose estimation problem within the general framework of probabilistic inference. In this chapter, we will introduce Bayes theorem, the basis for probabilistic inference, and give a general example of how a Bayesian approach can take advantage of prior knowledge to improve estimation. We will then formulate Bayes theorem in the context of mitigating uncertain marker motion. Finally, we will apply this approach on some sample data to demonstrate how this method can, in practice, produce substantially better measurement of knee joint motion then the previously established deterministic methods.

Keywords

Bayesian inference Pose estimation Motion capture Markers Multibody models Probabilistic X-ray 

References

  1. Anderst W, Zauel R, Bishop J, Demps E, Tashman S (2009) Validation of three-dimensional model based tibio-femoral tracking during running. Med Eng Phys 31(1):10–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andriacchi TP, Alexander EJ, Toney MK, Dyrby C, Sum J (1998) A point cluster method for in vivo motion analysis: applied to a study of knee kinematics. J Biomech Eng 120:743–749CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cappello A, Stagni R, Fantozzi S, Leardini A (2005) Soft tissue artifact compensation in knee kinematics by double anatomical landmark calibration: performance of a novel method during selected motor tasks. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 52:992–998CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Davis R, Ounpuu S, Tyburski D, Gage J (1991) A gait analysis data collection and reduction technique. Hum Mov Sci 10:575–587CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Deluzio KJ, Astephen JL (2007) Biomechanical features of gait waveform data associated with knee osteoarthritis. An application of principal component analysis. Gait Posture 25:86–93. PMID: 16567093CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dumas R, Camomilla V, Bonci T, Cheze L, Cappozzo A (2014) Generalized mathematical representation of the soft tissue artefact. J Biomech 47:476–481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Grimpampi E, Camomilla V, Cereatti A, de Leva P, Cappozzo A (2014) Metrics for describing soft-tissue artefact and its effect on Pose, size, and shape of marker clusters. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 61(2):362–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hamner S, John C, Anderson FC, Higginson J, Delp S (2008) Reducing residual forces and moments in a three-dimensional simulation of running. Proceedings of the North American Congress on Biomechanics IV, August 2008Google Scholar
  9. Kadaba M, Ramakrishnan H, Wootten M, Gainey J, Gorton G, Cochran G (1989) Repeatability of kinematic, kinetics and electromyographic data in normal adult gait. J Orthop Res 7:849–860CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kaplan ML, Heegaard JH (2001) Predictive algorithms for neuromuscular control of human locomotion. J Biomech 34:1077–1083. PMID: 11448699CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Koelewijin A, Richter H, van den Bogert A (2016) Trajectory optimization in stochastic multibody systems using direct collocation. In Proceedings of the 4th joint international conference on multibody system dynamicsGoogle Scholar
  12. Leardini A, Chiari L, DellaCroce U, Cappozzo A (2005) Human movement analysis using stereophotogrammetry. Part3. Soft tissue artifact assessment and compensation. Gait Posture 21:212–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lowrey K, Dao J, Todorov E (2017) Real-time state estimation with whole-body multi-contact dynamics: a modified UKF approach. In: Humanoid Robots (Humanoids), 2016, IEEE-RAS, 16th International ConferenceGoogle Scholar
  14. Lu TW, O’Connor JJ (1999) Bone position estimation from skin marker co-ordinates using global optimization with joint constraints. J Biomech 32:129–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Miller R, Hamill J (2015) Optimal footfall patterns for cost minimization in running. J Biomech 48:2858–2864CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Miller R, Kepple T, Selbie WS (2016) Direct collocation as a filter for inverse dynamics. In Proceedings of the 40th annual meeting of the American Society of BiomechanicsGoogle Scholar
  17. Peters A, Galna B, Sangeux M, Morris M, Baker R (2010) Quantification of soft tissue artifact in lower limb human motion analysis: a systematic review. Gait Posture 31:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Remey C, Thelen D (2009) Optimal estimation of dynamically consistent kinematics and kinetics for dynamic simulation of gait. ASME J Biomech Eng 13(3):31005Google Scholar
  19. Spoor C, Veldpaus F (1980) Rigid body motion calculated from spatial coordinates of markers. J Biomech 13(4):391–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Stroupe AW, Martin MC, Tucker B (2001) Distributed sensor fusion for object position estimation by multi-robot systems. In IEEE international conference on robotics & automation (ICRA-01)Google Scholar
  21. Taylor WR, Ehrig RM, Duda GN, Schell H, Seebeck P, Heller MO (2005) On the influence of soft tissue coverage in the determination of bone kinematics using skin markers. J Orthop Res 23:726–734CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Todorov E (2007) Probabilistic inference of multijoint movements, skeletal parameters and marker attachment from diverse motion capture data. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 54:1927–1939CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. van den Bogert A, Blana D, Heinrich D (2011) Implicit methods for efficient musculoskeletal simulation and optimal control. Procedia IUTAM 2(2011):297–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.C-Motion Inc.GermantownUSA

Section editors and affiliations

  • William Scott Selbie
    • 1
  1. 1.Has-Motion Inc.KingstonCanada

Personalised recommendations