Comparison between low-cost marker-less and high-end marker-based motion capture systems for the computer-aided assessment of working ergonomics. Issue 1 (2nd January 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Patrizi, Alfredo; Pennestrì, Ettore; Valentini, Pier Paolo
• Is Part Of: Ergonomics. Volume 59:Issue 1(2016)
• Page Start: 155
• Page End: 162
• Publication Date: 2016-01-02
• Subjects: motion capture -- working posture -- Microsoft Kinect -- marker-less -- ergonomics; Human engineering -- Periodicals; Cybernetics -- Periodicals; Industrial management -- Periodicals; Ergonomie -- Périodiques; Cybernétique -- Périodiques; Gestion d'entreprise -- Périodiques; 620.8205
• DOI: 10.1080/00140139.2015.1057238
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0014-0139

Abstract

Abstract : The paper deals with the comparison between a high-end marker-based acquisition system and a low-cost marker-less methodology for the assessment of the human posture during working tasks. The low-cost methodology is based on the use of a single Microsoft Kinect V1 device. The high-end acquisition system is the BTS SMART that requires the use of reflective markers to be placed on the subject's body. Three practical working activities involving object lifting and displacement have been investigated. The operational risk has been evaluated according to the lifting equation proposed by the American National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. The results of the study show that the risk multipliers computed from the two acquisition methodologies are very close for all the analysed activities. In agreement to this outcome, the marker-less methodology based on the Microsoft Kinect V1 device seems very promising to promote the dissemination of computer-aided assessment of ergonomics while maintaining good accuracy and affordable costs. Abstract : Practitioner's Summary: The study is motivated by the increasing interest for on-site working ergonomics assessment. We compared a low-cost marker-less methodology with a high-end marker-based system. We tested them on three different working tasks, assessing the working risk of lifting loads. The two methodologies showed comparable precision in all the investigations.