Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Journal of Biomechanics
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jbiomech
www.JBiomech.com
Department of Telemedicine and Virtual Rehabilitation, Burke Medical Research Institute, White Plains, NY, USA
Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Weill-Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA
c
Motor Recovery Laboratory, Burke Medical Research Institute, White Plains, NY, USA
d
The City College of New York, School of Biomedical Engineering, New York, NY, USA
b
art ic l e i nf o
a b s t r a c t
Article history:
Accepted 4 April 2016
The Leap Motion Controller (LMC) is a low-cost, markerless motion capture device that tracks hand, wrist
and forearm position. Integration of this technology into healthcare applications has begun to occur
rapidly, making validation of the LMC's data output an important research goal. Here, we perform a
detailed evaluation of the kinematic data output from the LMC, and validate this output against goldstandard, markered motion capture technology. We instructed subjects to perform three clinicallyrelevant wrist (exion/extension, radial/ulnar deviation) and forearm (pronation/supination) movements. The movements were simultaneously tracked using both the LMC and a marker-based motion
capture system from Motion Analysis Corporation (MAC). Adjusting for known inconsistencies in the
LMC sampling frequency, we compared simultaneously acquired LMC and MAC data by performing
Pearson's correlation (r) and root mean square error (RMSE). Wrist exion/extension and radial/ulnar
deviation showed good overall agreement (r 0.95; RMSE 11.6, and r 0.92; RMSE12.4, respectively)
with the MAC system. However, when tracking forearm pronation/supination, there were serious
inconsistencies in reported joint angles (r 0.79; RMSE38.4). Hand posture signicantly inuenced the
quality of wrist deviation (P o0.005) and forearm supination/pronation (Po 0.001), but not wrist exion/
extension (P 0.29). We conclude that the LMC is capable of providing data that are clinically meaningful
for wrist exion/extension, and perhaps wrist deviation. It cannot yet return clinically meaningful data
for measuring forearm pronation/supination. Future studies should continue to validate the LMC as
updated versions of their software are developed.
& 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Rehabilitation
Motion capture
Leap motion
Telemedicine
Physical therapy
Motor recovery
1. Introduction
In recent years, a number of low-cost, markerless motionsensing systems have become commercially available for gamers
and hobbyists; the Leap Motion Controller (LMC; Leap Motion Inc.,
San Francisco, CA) is one such system. This device has been
designed to quantify hand movements and gestures. The LMC is
portable, user-friendly, and can reliably track static objects within
0.2 mm accuracy (Weichert et al., 2013). Recently, it has been used
successfully in combination with digital games as a tool for telerehabilitation (Khademi et al., 2014; Putrino, 2014). Telerehabilitation is an emerging method of remote clinical care
delivery that has the potential to signicantly decrease impairment and improve quality of life in individuals suffering from
n
Corresponding author at: Department of Telemedicine and Virtual Rehabilitation, Burke Medical Research Institute, 785 Mamaroneck Ave, White Plains 10605,
NY, USA. Tel.: 1 914 368 3183; fax: 1 914 597 2225.
E-mail address: dap3002@med.cornell.edu (D. Putrino).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2016.04.006
0021-9290/& 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
studies that evaluate the LMC's ability to accurately track wrist and
forearm motion in human subjects in a realistic clinical or home
environment. If the LMC can provide accurate joint angle data in
practical settings, it would allow clinicians to remotely perform
assessments of upper-limb function. The implications are enormous for improving the delivery of care to individuals suffering
from motor dysfunction of the wrist and forearm: clinicians could
not only track compliance to home exercise programs, but also
measure the effects of home exercises on joint range of motion
with unprecedented accuracy and regularity. The ability to observe
compliance to a home exercise program alongside measures of
functional improvement will allow clinicians to rigorously evaluate the efcacy of home exercises for each patient.
In order to produce kinematic data, the LMC rst acquires
images of the environment, and uses object recognition to identify
upper limbs in the eld of view. The LMC ofcial website provides
a simple explanation of how it captures images (http://bit.ly/
1A2UI7Q). Following image capture, the LMC software uses a
proprietary variation of stereophotogrammetry for joint motion
inference (Selvik, 1989). Stereophotogrammetry has become a
well-adopted approach to markerless motion capture, but few
devices focus exclusively on deriving upper-limb kinematic data
(Cappozzo et al., 2005; Li et al., 2015). The specic details of how
the LMC optimizes basic stereophotogrammetry algorithms to
produce these data are not publicly available.
For decades, marker-based motion capture systems have been
held as the gold-standard in motion capture technology (Ceseracciu et al., 2014). They are used across disciplines to obtain the
most reliable, non-invasive measurements describing human
motion (Cook et al., 2007). Data from these systems, combined
with joint center estimations established by the use of validated
kinematic algorithms, allow for the calculation of joint motion to a
high degree of accuracy (Metcalf et al., 2008; Todorov, 2007;
Zhang et al., 2011). However, the lengthy setup times and specic
technical knowledge needed not only to operate such a system,
but also to acquire and process the data, renders its use as a
rehabilitation tool unfeasible.
Here, we use gold-standard motion capture technology to
quantify the accuracy with which the LMC records joint angles of
the wrist and forearm, under conditions that were designed to be
reproducible in a supervised clinical environment.
2. Methods
Subjects were recruited from the general population. Inclusion criteria stipulated that subjects must be neurologically healthy, with no history of signicant
injury to either upper limb. Informed written consent was obtained for each subject that was recruited into the study. All experimental practices were conducted
with full approval of the Burke Rehabilitation Hospital Committee for Human
Rights in Research.
2.1. Subject information
We recruited 16 subjects into the study, allowing us to examine 32 hands in
total: 16 right and 16 left. Average hand size was 18.3 cm 9.0 cm (Table 1). There
were six female participants, and ten male participants, with ages ranging from 23
to 55 (mean: 31; standard deviation: 10.1). All subjects completed the assigned
protocol without incident, and no subjects were excluded.
1743
Table 1
Average ( 7 standard deviation), maximum and minimum hand size metrics (cm).
Average
Maximum
Minimum
RH length
RH breadth
RH circ.
RH palm length
LH length
LH breadth
LH circ.
LH palm length
18.3
( 7 1.3)
21.3
16.2
9.1
( 7 0.9)
10.8
8
20.7
(7 1.5)
24.1
8.2
10.0
( 7 0.8)
11.9
8.4
18.2
( 7 1.5)
22
15.6
9.0
( 7 0.9)
11.1
7.7
20.4
( 7 1.6)
23.5
17.8
9.9
( 7 1.0)
11.8
8.2
1744
4
3
5
8
9
7
10
11
12
7
10
11
12
Fig. 1. Upper limb anatomical landmarks for marker placement. 1, 2) the acromion processes; 3) center of the sternum; 4) lateral, and 5) medial humeral epicondyles; 6)
ulnar, and 7) radial styloid processes; 8) the dorsal side of the wrist centered between the styloid processes; 9) center of the third metacarpal (back of the hand); 10) the
middle of the rst metacarpal; 11) the distal phalange of the thumb; 12) the distal phalange of the third (middle) nger.
Fig. 2. (Leap Motion Inc.). Typical use: a user controls virtual hands with the Leap
Motion.
dictate that the y-axis lie pointing proximally along the forearm, the x-axis pointing
volarly, and the z-axis pointing ulnarly (Fig. 5a). These axes were assigned
assuming the wrist's neutral position (i.e. the position at which there is 0 of
rotation) is perpendicular to the oor with the palm facing inward, and thumb
pointing upward. The LMC, on the other hand, considers the wrist to be at 0 of
rotation when the the hand is pronated and the palm is facing the device. As such, a
slight adjustment to the ISB recommendations was necessary in order for our
skeleton's joint angle output to match that of the device. This was achieved by a
simple 90 rotation of the wrist coordinate system about the local y-axis (the axis
running along the forearm; Fig. 5b).
Fig. 3. Experimental use: a subject ready to acquire data from the right hand. The
LMC rests on a variable-height platform to the side of the subject, and a wooden
indicator rod is raised to the level of each subject's elbow.
to our data. DTW is an established method for detecting and correcting temporal
alignment discrepancies in time series datasets (Fu et al., 2007). It is commonly
used for purposes such as speech recognition and handwriting verication analyses
(Munich and Perona, 1999; Myers et al., 1980).
1745
Fig. 4. Hand movements: a) radial/ulnar deviation, b) exion/extension, and c) supination/pronation. Hand positions: d) open hand, e) loose st, and f) tight st.
y
z
Fig. 5. Neutral positions of the wrist and corresponding axes. a) ISB recommended neutral wrist position, with grey arrows describing our rotational adjustments. b)
Adjusted neutral wrist position for Leap Motion.
2.7. Comparison of LMC and MAC data
In order to determine whether the LMC tracked some movements more
accurately than others, we performed an ANOVA analysis to look for differences
between the correlation coefcients for all combinations of movement directions
and hand postures. Because we tested across nine different variables, we adjusted
all P-values output by the ANOVA analysis using a Bonferroni Correction. These
analyses can be found in Supplementary Table 1 and Supplementary Figs 13.
In order to quantify the ranges where the LMC showed acceptable performance,
we split the full range of motion (as determined by the MAC measurements) of
each movement direction into multiple small sub-ranges. Supination/pronation
and exion/extension angles were split into 31 sub-ranges of 10 each, and radial/
ulnar deviation into 30 sub-ranges of 5 each. We used three measures to quantify
agreement between LMC and MAC systems:
3. Results
3.1. Study participants and initial analysis
We collected a total of 288 simultaneous recordings from 16
subjects using the MAC and LMC systems. Details of left (LH) and
right (RH) hand size metrics, including hand breadth, length, circumference (Circ.), and palm length for all subjects are detailed in
Table 1. We tested wrist and forearm motion in three degrees of
freedom: wrist exion/extension, forearm pronation/supination
and wrist radial/ulnar deviation. The population ranges of motion
for all movements tested using the gold-standard MAC system are
listed in Table 2. The average duration of data recordings was
16.7 7 2.0 s, indicating that movement speed was within parameters that would not affect LMC accuracy.
3.2. Effect of movement direction on correlation of LMC and MAC
The highest correlations were achieved when tracking exion/
extension (r 0.95) and radial/ulnar deviation (r 0.92). However,
1746
Table 2
Average ( 7 standard deviation) joint ranges of motion (degrees).
Range
Extension
Flexion
Pronation
Supination
Radial deviation
Ulnar deviation
44.4 ( 710.3)
64.3 (7 8.4)
11.4 ( 7 9.1)
148.9 ( 735.6)
21.1 ( 7 3.5)
21.5 ( 7 3.4)
Effective Range
30
20
+2 SD
Bias (Degrees)
10
+1 SD
Mean
-1 SD
-10
-2 SD
-20
-30
-40
40
35
30
RMSE
25
20
15
10
+110 to +125
+85 to +95
+95 to +110
+75 to +85
+65 to +75
+55 to +65
+45 to +55
+25 to +35
+35 to +45
+15 to +25
-5 to +5
+5 to +15
-15 to -5
-25 to -15
-35 to -25
-55 to -45
-45 to -35
-65 to -55
-85 to -75
-75 to -65
-95 to -85
-110 to -95
-140 to -125
-125 to -110
Fig. 6. a) Flexion/extension Bias across range. Negative x-values represent exion for both right and left hands; positive x-values represent extension for both hands. Mean
bias 7 2 standard deviations are delineated on the plot to highlight differing accuracy levels. b) Flexion/extension RMSE across range: Negative x-values represent exion for
both right and left hands; positive x-values represent extension for both hands. Data points attributed to the right hand are represented by warm colors, the left hand by cool
colors. Effective ranges are shaded. The hands represented on the negative and positive sides of the x-axis indicate the directions of movement for both the right and left
hands. (For interpretation of the references to color in this gure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
1747
Effective Range
40
30
Bias (Degrees)
20
+2 SD
10
+1 SD
Mean
-1 SD
-10
-2 SD
-20
-30
40
30
RMSE
25
20
15
10
5
+50 to +55
+45 to +50
+35 to +40
+40 to +45
+30 to +35
+20 to +25
+25 to +30
+15 to +20
+10 to +15
0 to +5
+5 to +10
-5 to 0
-10 to -5
-15 to -10
-20 to -15
-30 to -25
-25 to -20
-40 to -35
-35 to -30
-45 to -40
-55 to -50
-50 to -45
-60 to -55
Fig. 7. a) Radial/ulnar deviation Bias magnitude across range: Negative x-values represent radial deviation of the right hand and ulnar deviation of the left hand; positive xvalues represent ulnar deviation of the right hand and radial deviation of the left. Mean Bias 72 standard deviations are delineated on the plot to highlight differing
accuracy levels. b) Radial/ulnar deviation RMSE across range: Negative x-values represent radial deviation of the right hand and ulnar deviation of the left hand; positive xvalues represent ulnar deviation of the right hand and radial deviation of the left. Data points attributed to the right hand are represented by warm colors, the left hand by
cool colors. Effective ranges are shaded. The hands represented on the negative and positive sides of the x-axis indicate the directions of movement for both the right and left
hands. (For interpretation of the references to color in this gure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
1748
80
60
Bias (Degrees)
40
20
+2 SD
+1 SD
Mean
-1 SD
-2 SD
-20
-40
-60
100
90
80
RMSE
70
60
50
40
30
20
+160 to +180
+180 to +200
+140 to +160
+125 to +140
+95 to +110
+110 to +125
+75 to +85
+85 to +95
+65 to +75
+55 to +65
+35 to +45
+45 to +55
+25 to +35
+15 to +25
-5 to +5
+5 to +15
-15 to -5
-25 to -15
-45 to -35
-35 to -25
-55 to -45
-75 to -65
-65 to -55
-85 to -75
-95 to -85
-110 to -95
-125 to -110
-160 to -140
-140 to -125
-200 to -180
-180 to -160
10
Fig. 8. a) Pronation/supination Bias magnitude across range: Negative x-values represent supination of the right hand and pronation of the left hand; positive x-values
represent pronation of the right hand and supination of the left. Mean Bias 7 2 standard deviations are delineated on the plot to highlight differing accuracy levels. b)
Supination/pronation RMSE across range: Negative x-values represent supination of the right hand and pronation of the left hand; positive x-values represent pronation of
the right hand and supination of the left. Data points attributed to the right hand are represented by warm colors, the left hand by cool colors. No effective range was
identied for this movement. The hands represented on the negative and positive sides of the x-axis indicate the directions of movement for both the right and left hands.
(For interpretation of the references to color in this gure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
counted only the region where 10% accuracy was reported for both
the right and the left hands across all hand postures. These effective
ranges are represented by the shaded regions on each of the following graphs. Agreement between the LMC and MAC systems is at
its highest (i.e. LMC Bias is lowest) between 25 and 45 for
wrist exion/extension (Fig. 6a, Po0.001; ANOVA). For radial/ulnar
deviation, the best performance was seen between 10 and 5
(Fig. 7a). The Pearson correlations for wrist exion/extension and
ulnar/radial deviation change expectedly across each movement's
range of motion the correlations are maximized when measuring
angles within each effective range. Hand posture had no signicant
effect on these motions' correlations within the reduced sub-ranges
(P0.54, P 0.99; ANOVA). The associated RMSE across the different sub-ranges also increases accordingly as they approach the
extremes of range (Figs. 6b and 7b, Po0.001; ANOVA). This was of
particular interest because of the large overall range of RMSE values
observed in each movement: exion/extension values ranged from
3.4 to 43.5, radial/ulnar deviation values from 1.6 to 29.9, and
supination/pronation from 11.0 to 76.8 (Figs. 68; Supplementary
Tables 2-4). In the forearm pronation/supination direction of
4. Discussion
4.1. The LMC discriminates wrist motion with acceptable accuracy
Devices such as the LMC have the potential to revolutionize
care-delivery for individuals in need of motor rehabilitation of the
hand, due to their accessibility and user-friendly nature (Avola et
al., 2014; Vogiatzaki and Krukowski, 2015; Myers et al., 1980;
Putrino, 2014). The LMC has already proven to be a useful tool for
1749
our subjects. These markers were essential for MAC motion capture, but are designed specically to reect infrared light. Since the
LMC emits infrared light, the reective properties of the markers
potentially affected the stability of LMC readings. This mostly
occurred during the limits of supination (as this was the hand
movement where the markers were most exposed to the infrared
light of the LMC), so this phenomenon may be additionally
responsible for LMC data instability at the extremes of supination.
A nal, but important, limitation of this study was that,
although we tried to capture natural movement in our subjects,
our protocol was still rather constrained subjects were placed in
a standardized seat, and the LMC was positioned at an optimal
distance from their hand. Subjects received clear instructions on
the protocol, direction and speed of movement were controlled,
and data acquisition was repeated if a deviation from the protocol
was observed. As such, our results are not transferrable to a home
environment. Further research is required to evaluate the role of
the LMC in collecting accurate kinematic data from patients in an
unsupervised environment.
1750
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge the Winifred Masterson
Burke Medical Research Institute for the startup funding that
supported this research. The authors also thank the hard-working
Putrino Lab interns: Hannah Actor-Engel, Divija Chopra, David
Harary, Jared Levinson, Matt Marano, Lucas Martins and Cory
Semper.
References
Avola, D., Petracca, A., Placidi, G., Spezialetti, M., Cinque, L., Levialdi, S., 2014.
Markerless hand gesture interface based on LEAP motion controller. DMS,
260266.
Barachant, A., Bonnet, S., Congedo, M., Jutten, C., 2011. Multiclass braincomputer
interface classication by Riemannian geometry. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 59
(4), 920928.
Cappozzo, A., Leardini, A., Chiari, L., 2005. Human movement analysis using stereophotogrammetry: Part 1: theoretical background. Gait Posture 21, 186196.
Carter, T.I., Pansy, B., Wolff, A.L., Hillstrom, H.J., Backus, S.I., Lenhoff, M., Wolfe, S.W.,
2009. Accuracy and reliability of three different techniques for manual goniometry for wrist motion: a cadaveric study. J. Hand Surg. 34, 14221428.
Ceseracciu, E., Sawacha, Z., Cobelli, C., 2014. Comparison of markerless and markerbased motion capture technologies through simultaneous data collection during gait: proof of concept. PloS One 9 (3), e87640.
Cook, J.R., Baker, N.A., Cham, R., Hale, E., Redfern, M.S., 2007. Measurements of wrist
and nger postures: a comparison of goniometric and motion capture techniques. J. Appl. Biomech. 23 (1), 7078.
Fu, A., Keogh, E., Lau, L., Ratanamahatana, C., Wong, R., 2007. Scaling and time
warping in time series querying. VLDB J. 17 (4), 899921.
Guna, J., Jakus, G., Poganik, M., Tomai, S., Sodnik, J., 2014. An analysis of the
precision and reliability of the leap motion sensor and its suitability for static
and dynamic tracking. Sensors.
Jonsson, P., Johnson, P.W., 2001. Comparison of measurement accuracy between
two types of wrist goniometer systems. Appl. Ergon. 32, 599607.
Khademi, M., Mousavi Hondori, H., McKenzie A., Dodakian, L., Lopes, C.V., Cramer, S.
C., 2014. Free-hand interaction with leap motion controller for stroke rehabilitation. In: Proceedings of the Extended Abstracts of the 32nd Annual ACM
Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 16631668.
Li, F., Li, E., Shaee, M.J., Wong, A., Zelek, J., 2015. Dense Depth Map Reconstruction
from Sparse Measurements Using a Multilayer Conditional Random Field
Model. In: Proceedings of the 12th Conference on Computer and Robot Vision
(CRV), 8693.
Lowe, B., 2004. Accuracy and validity of observational estimates of wrist and
forearm posture. Ergonomics 47 (5), 527554.
Metcalf, C.D., Notley, S.V., Chappell, P.H., Burridge, J.H., Yule, V.T., 2008. Validation
and application of a computational model for wrist and hand movements using
surface markers. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 55 (3), 11991210.
Munich, M., Perona, P., 1999. Continuous dynamic time warping for translation
invariant curve alignment with applications to signature verication. In: Proceedings of the Seventh IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision.
Myers, C., Rabiner, L., Rosenberg, A., 1980. Performance tradeoffs in dynamic time
warping algorithms for isolated word recognition. IEEE Trans. Acoust. 28 (6),
623635.
Navarro, J.E. Garrido, Penichet, V.M. Ruiz, Prez, M.D. Lozano, 2014. Movementbased interaction applied to physical rehabilitation therapies. J. Med. Internet
Res. 16 (12), e281.
Putrino, D., 2014. Telerehabilitation and emerging virtual reality approaches to
stroke rehabilitation. Curr. Opin. Neurol. 27 (6), 631636.
Putrino, D., Zanders, H., Rykman, A., Lee, P., Naeem, O., Disla, L., Panna, T., Edwards,
D., 2016. Use of the GesAircraft video game for upper limb rehabilitation in
stroke: a pilot study. Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair (in press).
Rab, G., Petuskey, K., Bagley, A., 2002. A method for determination of upper
extremity kinematics. Gait Posture 15 (2), 113119.
Schmidt, R., Disselhorst-Klug, C., Silny, J., Rau, G., 1999. A marker-based measurement procedure for unconstrained wrist and elbow motions. J. Biomech. 32 (6),
615621.
Selvik, G., 1989. Roentgen stereophotogrammetry. Acta Orthop. Scand. 60 (Suppl.
232), S1S51.
Taylor, J., Curran, K., 2015. Using leap motion and gamication to facilitate and
encourage rehabilitation for hand injuries:, Handbook of Research Holistic
Perspectives Gamication Clinical Practice, pp. 183192.
Todorov, E., 2007. Probabilistic Inference of multijoint movements, skeletal parameters and marker attachments from diverse motion capture data. IEEE Trans.
Biomed. Eng. 54 (11), 19271939.
Tuzel, O., Porikli, F., Meer, P., 2008. Pedestrian detection via classication on Riemannian manifold. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 30 (10), 17131727.
Vogiatzaki, E., Krukowski, A., 2015. Rehabilitation after stroke using immersive user
interfaces in 3D virtual and augmented gaming environments. EAI Endorsed
Trans. Pervasive Health Technol. 1 (1), e7.
Weichert, F., Bachmann, D., Rudak, B., Fisseler, D., 2013. Analysis of the accuracy and
robustness of the leap motion controller. Sensors 13, 63806393.
White, R.M., 1980. Comparative Anthropometry of the Hand. Army Research and
Development Command, U.S. Natick, Massachusetts Technical Report NATICK/
TR-81/010 (AD A101070).
Wu, G., Van Der Helm, F., Veeger, H., 2005. ISB recommendation on denitions of
joint coordinate systems of various joints for the reporting of human joint
motion Part II: shoulder, elbow, wrist and hand. J. Biomech. 38 (5), 981992.
Zhang, Z., Wong, W., Wu, J., 2011. Ubiquitous human upper-limb motion estimation
using wearable sensors. IEEE Trans. Inf. Technol. Biomed. 15 (4), 513522.