Accuracy measurement of different marker based motion analysis systems for biomechanical applications: A round robin study.

INTRODUCTION: Multiple camera systems are widely used for 3D-motion analysis. Due to increasing accuracies these camera systems gained interest in biomechanical research areas, where high precision measurements are desirable. In the current study different measurement systems were compared regarding their measurement accuracy.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Translational and rotational accuracy measurements as well as the zero offset measurements of seven different measurement systems were performed using two reference devices and two different evaluation algorithms. All measurements were performed in the same room with constant temperature at the same laboratory. Equal positions were measured with the systems according to a standardized protocol. Measurement errors were determined and compared.
RESULTS: The highest measurement errors were seen for a measurement system using active ultrasonic markers, followed by another active marker measurement system (infrared) having measurement errors up to several hundred micrometers. The highest accuracies were achieved by three stereo camera systems, using passive 2D marker points having errors typically below 20 μm.
CONCLUSIONS: This study can help to better assess the results obtained with different measurement systems. With the focus on the measurement accuracy, only one aspect in the selection of a system was considered. Depending on the requirements of the user, other factors like measurement frequency, the maximum analyzable volume, the marker type or the costs are important factors as well.

Introduction

Marker based motion capture analysis is a common approach to make three dimensional human motions visible. Research areas, in which motion analysis is applied, include the analysis and optimization of training methods in sports as well as the examination of human motion for health reasons [1-3]. For these applications, the markers are attached to the skin of human subjects on top of bony landmarks and the joint angles during motion can be calculated with different models. Because the skin with the attached markers is moving relative to the anatomical landmarks during motion and a model to determine the joint centers always contain errors, resulting measurement errors of a few millimeters and a few degrees are unavoidable [2, 4, 5]. Algorithms were developed to limit errors due to soft tissue motion and increase the measurement accuracy [6]. However, in the mentioned research fields, typically the measurement accuracy does not need to be beyond one millimeter or one degree. In biomechanical studies with human specimens, where the kinematics of an isolated joint is analyzed during passive motion, a higher precision of the motion analysis is needed. Small differences of the joint kinematics can help to optimize implant designs or surgical methods. For biomechanical studies, optical markers can directly be attached to the bone using pins building a rigid unit [7-9]. Therefore, measurement artefacts as when markers are attached at the soft tissue can be prevented, leading to a higher accuracy [4]. Another biomechanical research field next to the kinematics of the joint is the measurement of micromotions between an artificial joint and a bone of a human specimen, in order to determine the primary stability of the implant [10, 11]. For this purpose, markers are attached to the implant as well as to the bone to measure the micromotions between the components under loading conditions. The translational motions between the implant and the bone are often below 100 μm and rotations far below one degree can occur [12-14]. Due to improvements of marker-based measurement systems in the last decades, these systems were also used for these biomechanical research areas, where high accuracies are needed.

When acquiring a new optical measurement system for minor motions, the accuracy in all six degrees of freedom of the system is important. The manufacturers of a measurement system typically state either no accuracy or an accuracy, which mostly refers to an in-house measurement of the company in one axis under optimum conditions. Therefore, the aim of this round robin test was to compare the measurement accuracies of different available motion capture systems, when experienced users carry out the same measuring task. The results can help to detect possible variances of the measurement systems, make studies more comparable and should give scientists an overview of the accuracy of some commonly used marker based measurement systems.

Materials and methods

In total, seven different measurement systems from six biomechanical laboratories located in Germany were tested regarding the measurement accuracy and the precision. For this end, two different reference devices were used. All measurements were performed in the same standardized temperature-controlled (22 ± 1°C) precision measurement room.

Camera systems

The used camera systems and the abbreviation for this publication are: NDI Optotrak Certus (Northern Digital Inc., Waterloo, Ontario, Canada) = Optotrak, CMS20S-2-Sync (Zebris Medical GmbH, Isny, Germany) = CMS, Q-400-3D (Limess Messtechnik und Software GmbH, Krefeld, Germany) = Q-400, Pontos 5M (GOM GmbH, Braunschweig, Germany) = Pontos, OptiTrack (NaturalPoint, Inc., Corvallis, Oregon, USA) = OptiTrack, Atos Core 300 (GOM GmbH, Braunschweig, Germany) = Core and Aramis 3D camera MV600 (GOM GmbH, Braunschweig, Germany) = Aramis. Fig 1 shows the seven optical measurement systems used in this study and Table 1 contains the properties of the measurement systems including the type of markers and the measurement resolution according to the manufacturer.

Fig 1

Images of the seven measurement systems used for the accuracy and zero offset measurements.

Table 1

Specifications of the seven measurement systems.

Measurement System	Markers	Measurement Accuracy/Resolution	Used Frequency/Max. Frequency	Max. analyzable volume	Calibration	Camera
		(Manufacturer)
Optotrak	Active markers, Orthopaedic Research Pins (20mm)	0.1 mm/ 0.01 mm	410/2000 Hz	4.2x3.0x5.5 m	Calibration was carried out by the manufacturer	Three camera sensors
CMS	Active Ultrasonic markers; 6 active transmitters	1/10 mm– 1/100 mm	Max. 300 Hz/number of marker	Hemisphere of 16.75 m3 (max. distance = 2 m)	Calibration was carried out by the manufacturer	Ultrasonic receiver MA-XX-2
Q-400	Passive marker (Speckle-pattern)	0.01 pixel for 3D-motions	15 Hz	Up to 10x10 m; low depth measurement	Special calibration targets used before measurement	Three cameras with 2.0 Mpixel
Pontos	Passive markers 1.5 mm (GOM)	0.021 pixel (calibration error)	15 Hz	280x240x240 mm	Calibration object 20 MV 250x200mm2	Stereo camera system (two 3 Mpixel cameras)
		No company details
OptiTrack	Passive Markers; two rigid bodies KS1 = 5 markers & KS2 = 4 markers	+- 0.2 mm	240/240 Hz	5x5x3 m	Using a calibration stick with passive markers on it before measurement	Seven cameras (Prime 13)
		1.3 MP
Core	Passive markers 1.5 mm (GOM)	0.008 pixel (optimized calibration error)	7/14 Hz	300x230x230 mm	Calibration object CP40/MV320	Stereo camera system (two 5 Mpixel cameras)
		No company details
Aramis	Passive markers 3.0 mm (GOM)	0.015 pixel (optimized calibration error)	25/44 Hz	600x530x400 mm	Calibration object CP40/MV560	Stereo camera system (two 6 Mpixel cameras)
		No company details

The measurements of the different systems were performed at different time points and, with one exception, on different days. The measuring systems were placed in the temperature controlled precision measuring room at least one hour before the measurement for acclimatization. Afterwards, the responsible working group or researcher of the particular measurement system set up the measurement system as they usually do for laboratory tests. Depending on the measurement system, a calibration was performed before the measurement. After that, the measurements were performed with both reference devices successively.

Reference devices and measurement sequences

Two different reference devices were used, in order to ensure the accuracy of the test results and to cover two different measuring ranges. In addition, the marker motion of the first reference system was measured in relation to another fixed marker and the marker motion of the second reference system was determined in relation to the same marker in the zero position.

Coordinate measurement machine

The coordinate measurement machine (CMM, MS222, Mahr, Göttingen, Germany) is positioned in the corner of the measurement room and has an accuracy of 2.0 μm. The size of the measurement room is 17 m2 floor space and 2.5 m height. The baseplate of the CMM can move in the x- and z-direction, whereby a touch sensor holder can move in the y-direction. The CMM was used for the accuracy measurement of greater distances (0.1 to 100 mm) and to determine the zero offset of the measurement devices.

Two adapters, having a flat rectangular surface, were mounted to the CMM, used as attachment for the different markers. One adapter was fixed at the baseplate and the other one at the touch sensor holder. To measure the accuracy as well as the zero offset of the x-axis, y-axis and z-axis, six movement routines were executed successively. Every measurement started at the home position. In the home position, the adapter for the y-axis was just above the adapter for the x-axis and z-axis (Fig 2). In order to reduce vibrations, the feet of the CMM are made of elastic rubber.

Fig 2

Adapters mounted at the CMM in order to determine the measurement accuracy and zero offset.

To determine the zero offset (1) a measurement was performed at the home position, then (2) the adapter was driven 10 mm in one axial direction, (3) a measurement was performed again and afterwards (4) the adapter was driven back to the home position and (5) another measurement was performed. This process was repeated five times for statistical purposes. After that, the same protocol was applied for the other two axes. Thus, for each axis, six measurements were performed at zero position and five measurements were performed at a distance of 10 mm. The distances from the moving adapter were determined in relation to the markers of the motionless adapter and compared to the real motion of the CMM to calculate the measurement errors.

In order to measure the accuracy for different distances, the same approach was used as for the previous measurement, but the three axes were driven successively to different positions from the starting position (Table 2) and this procedure was measured five times for statistical purposes.

Table 2

Positions for the translational accuracy measurement using the CMM.

	P0	P1	P2	P3	P4	P5	P6	P7	P8	P9
Position in mm	0.000	0.100	1.000	3.000	5.000	10.000	30.000	50.000	70.000	100.000

After each position, a measurement was performed. Using this method, the measurement errors could be determined from very low motions (0.1 mm) to larger distances (100 mm).

Manual reference device

The manual reference device is a six degree of freedom adjustment unit, consisting of three linear bearing stages M-443 including the matching micrometer screws SM-50 (Newport Corporation, Irvine, California, USA) having a measurement sensitivity of 1 μm each and three different rotating bearings. The rotating bearings were Newport M-GON40-L for rotations around the x-axis (sensitivity of 5 arcsec), Newport M-GON40-U for rotations around the y-axis (sensitivity of 8 arcsec) and Newport RS-65 for rotations around the z-axis (sensitivity of 11 arcsec).

The unit can move in one direction or around one axis by drilling a specific micrometer screw (Fig 3).

Fig 3

Manual reference device to determine the accuracy of small translational as well as rotational motions.

The manual reference device was fixated at a stable metal frame, which was positioned next to the CMM in the same measurement room. The different markers were fixated on the front plate of the reference device. To calculate the measurement errors, the distances of the markers on the moving reference device were determined relative to the same markers in the zero positions. Therefore, no reference markers on any motionless part were needed.

The six axes were driven successively to different positions by the same user (Table 3).

Table 3

Translational and rotational positions using the manual reference device.

	P0	P1	P2	P3
Translation in mm (x, y, z)	0.000	1.000	3.000	5.000
Rotation x in°	0.000	1.242	3.727	6.212
Rotation y in°	0.000	2.116	6.349	10.581
Rotation z in°	0.000	2.000	6.000	10.000

The given values of Table 3 correspond to full rotations of the micrometer screws in order to reduce possible user depending variabilities. Measurements were taken at each of the indicated positions. The measurements were repeated five times for statistical purposes.

Statistics

The measured values with the measurement devices were compared with the values of the CMM and with the values of the manual adjustment unit to determine the measurement errors with both reference devices. The mean and standard deviation of the five measurements were calculated for every position. All statistical analyses were carried out using SPSS 22 (IBM, Amonk, NY, USA).

Results

Some of the measurement systems could determine motions in one direction (Pontos, Core and Aramis) by defining a coordinate system in the associated software. The Optotrak and OptiTrack systems used a rigid reference marker body to define the coordinate system. On the other hand, the two measurement devices Q-400 and CMS measured a resulting vector motion from x-, y- and z-translation due to the usage of a global coordinate system. In order to compare the measurement values of the different measurement devices all together, the resulting measured motions of all axes were used and compared to the true values. Because of high differences regarding the measurement errors a logarithmic scale was used for all figures without the presentation of the standard error.

Zero offset measurement results using the coordinate measurement machine

The measurement errors of the zero offset measurements are shown in Fig 4. Zero_X represents five measurements when driving from 10 mm in x-direction to the home position. P_X represents five measurements when driving from the home position 10 mm in x-direction. Zero_Y, P_Y, Zero_Z and P_Z represent similar measurements like Zero_X and P_X but for movements in y- and z-direction.

Fig 4

Measurement errors for the zero offset condition in x-, y- and z-direction of the investigated measurement systems.

The total values of the zero offset measurement errors and the associated standard deviation of the zero offset measurements are shown in Table 4.

Table 4

Mean measurement errors and standard deviation of the zero offset condition of the seven systems.

	Optotrak	CMS	Q-400	Pontos	OptiTrack	Core	Aramis
Zero_X in μm	24 ± 11	298 ± 196	2 ± 2	5 ± 2	26 ± 25	2 ± 1	5 ± 3
P_X in μm	39 ± 4	319 ± 214	8 ± 1	1 ± 0	56 ± 1	1 ± 0	2 ± 1
Zero_Y in μm	15 ± 7	174 ± 125	2 ± 1	4 ± 1	6 ± 8	3 ± 1	5 ± 2
P_Y in μm	61 ± 1	208 ± 95	9 ± 0	1 ± 1	44 ± 7	3 ± 1	1 ± 1
Zero_Z in μm	12 ± 3	284 ± 193	8 ± 4	7 ± 3	3 ± 3	8 ± 3	18 ± 8
P_Z in μm	133 ± 3	213 ± 103	6 ± 5	10 ± 3	28 ± 21	10 ± 3	18 ± 5

Accuracy measurement results using the coordinate measurement machine

The measurement errors of the accuracy measurements in x-, y- and z-direction using the CMM are shown in Fig 5. The target point P6 of the measurement in z-direction for the OptiTrack measurement system was deleted because one marker of the rigid body was covered and could not be detected.

Fig 5

Measurement errors of the accuracy measurements of translational motions in x-direction (top diagram), y-direction (middle diagram) and z-direction (bottom diagram) for the seven measurement systems using the CMM as reference device.

The total values of measurement errors of the accuracy measurements in x-, y- and z-direction using the CMM are shown in Table 5.

Table 5

Numerical measurement errors of the seven systems when using the CMM as reference device.

	Optotrak	CMS	Q-400	Pontos	OptiTrack	Core	Aramis
P1_X in μm	3 ± 2	779 ± 573	1 ± 1	2 ± 1	14 ± 7	16 ± 0	10 ± 4
P2_X in μm	12 ± 3	316 ± 231	5 ± 1	3 ± 3	27 ± 11	1 ± 0	0 ± 0
P3_X in μm	20 ± 2	306 ± 224	1 ± 1	2 ± 1	14 ± 12	1 ± 0	2 ± 1
P4_X in μm	24 ± 3	401 ± 185	4 ± 1	2 ± 2	38 ± 11	1 ± 0	1 ± 1
P5_X in μm	34 ± 1	472 ± 206	9 ± 0	2 ± 2	73 ± 13	0 ± 0	1 ± 1
P6_X in μm	102 ± 3	431 ± 545	21 ± 1	3 ± 2	105 ± 13	0 ± 0	1 ± 1
P7_X in μm	167 ± 2	361 ± 251	36 ± 1	4 ± 2	99 ± 17	1 ± 1	5 ± 2
P8_X in μm	290 ± 2	861 ± 546	47 ± 1	3 ± 2	139 ± 13	1 ± 1	8 ± 1
P9_X in μm	442 ± 4	620 ± 257	59 ± 2	7 ± 3	103 ± 12	0 ± 0	3 ± 0
P1_Y in μm	2 ± 1	96 ± 85	1 ± 1	2 ± 1	7 ± 5	4 ± 1	2 ± 1
P2_Y in μm	8 ± 3	274 ± 152	3 ± 1	2 ± 1	26 ± 9	2 ± 1	1 ± 1
P3_Y in μm	19 ± 2	308 ± 292	1 ± 0	2 ± 0	29 ± 8	2 ± 1	1 ± 1
P4_Y in μm	30 ± 1	407 ± 132	6 ± 2	2 ± 1	37 ± 7	2 ± 2	1 ± 1
P5_Y in μm	64 ± 3	231 ± 162	10 ± 1	1 ± 1	47 ± 10	3 ± 2	1 ± 1
P6_Y in μm	189 ± 2	374 ± 417	25 ± 2	2 ± 1	52 ± 7	4 ± 2	4 ± 1
P7_Y in μm	311 ± 3	391 ± 263	44 ± 2	1 ± 1	36 ± 18	5 ± 3	2 ± 2
P8_Y in μm	437 ± 3	374 ± 237	62 ± 3	1 ± 1	47 ± 27	8 ± 3	6 ± 2
P9_Y in μm	630 ± 2	569 ± 348	87 ± 4	2 ± 1	20 ± 30	10 ± 3	1 ± 1
P1_Z in μm	3 ± 1	325 ± 151	8 ± 8	5 ± 4	46 ± 43	12 ± 11	4 ± 2
P2_Z in μm	31 ± 5	268 ± 244	34 ± 20	9 ± 5	78 ± 58	9 ± 8	6 ± 5
P3_Z in μm	51 ± 4	183 ± 106	15 ± 14	10 ± 5	56 ± 45	10 ± 9	8 ± 6
P4_Z in μm	67 ± 5	184 ± 130	12 ± 11	11 ± 7	145 ± 107	11 ± 8	6 ± 1
P5_Z in μm	138 ± 8	212 ± 162	13 ± 12	6 ± 3	154 ± 68	11 ± 7	6 ± 6
P6_Z in μm	344 ± 6	113 ± 66	22 ± 14	6 ± 4	-	11 ± 12	12 ± 7
P7_Z in μm	560 ± 12	179 ± 100	33 ± 21	8 ± 8	870 ± 83	9 ± 8	14 ± 2
P8_Z in μm	852 ± 18	92 ± 138	46 ± 14	6 ± 2	477 ± 164	10 ± 10	6 ± 5
P9_Z in μm	1113 ± 21	178 ± 86	60 ± 20	5 ± 5	79 ± 72	12 ± 10	11 ± 10

Accuracy measurement using the manual reference device

The results of the measurements using the manual adjustment unit are separated into translational and rotational results. All adjustments of the manual device for each group were performed by the same experienced user to account for interpersonal variability.

Translational accuracy measurement using the manual reference device

The measurement errors of the translational accuracy measurements in x-, y- and z-direction using the manual measurement device are shown in Fig 6.

Fig 6

Measurement errors of the accuracy measurements of the translational motions in x-direction (top diagram), y-direction (middle diagram) and z-direction (bottom diagram) for the seven measurement systems using the manual reference device.

The total values of the measurement errors and the associated standard deviation of the translational accuracy measurements in x-, y- and z-direction using the manual measurement device are shown in Table 6.

Table 6

Numerical translational measurement errors of the seven systems when using the manual reference device.

	Optotrak	CMS	Q-400	Pontos	OptiTrack	Core	Aramis
P1_X in μm	11 ± 6	83 ± 63	3 ± 2	2 ± 2	22 ± 26	4 ± 3	3 ± 1
P2_X in μm	23 ± 9	71 ± 54	2 ± 1	2 ± 1	29 ± 28	5 ± 3	3 ± 2
P3_X in μm	41 ± 8	271 ± 296	3 ± 2	2 ± 1	23 ± 26	4 ± 2	2 ± 2
P1_Y in μm	10 ± 6	343 ± 136	2 ± 2	3 ± 1	13 ± 5	4 ± 2	3 ± 3
P2_Y in μm	18 ± 11	348 ± 237	6 ± 2	4 ± 1	10 ± 6	7 ± 4	3 ± 3
P3_Y in μm	36 ± 8	463 ± 333	11 ± 3	3 ± 2	10 ± 6	7 ± 3	4 ± 2
P1_Z in μm	39 ± 18	404 ± 195	15 ± 12	10 ± 8	8 ± 9	12 ± 8	6 ± 6
P2_Z in μm	63 ± 16	226 ± 150	27 ± 13	17 ± 12	20 ± 10	22 ± 7	12 ± 6
P3_Z in μm	82 ± 14	227 ± 117	33 ± 16	24 ± 8	25 ± 12	37 ± 8	27 ± 9

Rotational accuracy measurement using the manual measurement device

The measurement errors of the rotational accuracy measurements around the x-, y- and z-axes using the manual measurement device are shown in Fig 7.

Fig 7

Measurement errors of the accuracy measurements of the translational motions in x-direction (top diagram), y-direction (middle diagram) and z-direction (bottom diagram) for the seven measurement systems using the manual reference device.

The total values of the measurement errors and the associated standard deviation of the rotational accuracy measurements around the x-, y- and z-axes using the manual measurement device are shown in Table 7.

Table 7

Numerical rotational measurement errors of the seven measurement systems when using the manual reference device.

	Optotrak	CMS	Q-400	Pontos	OptiTrack	Core	Aramis
P1_X in arcmin	0.66 ± 0.42	3.40 ± 2.07	0.68 ± 0.55	0.19 ± 0.12	4.50 ± 0.22	1.15 ± 0.46	0.36 ± 0.45
P2_X in arcmin	1.30 ± 0.65	2.64 ± 1.96	2.17 ± 0.52	0.33 ± 0.25	7.48 ± 0.21	2.38 ± 0.41	0.56 ± 0.44
P3_X in arcmin	1.27 ± 0.63	10.79 ± 1.98	1.50 ± 0.91	1.94 ± 0.21	10.88 ± 0.28	2.93 ± 0.35	1.77 ± 0.75
P1_Y in arcmin	2.10 ± 0.77	6.89 ± 6.92	1.95 ± 1.07	0.95 ± 0.29	0.98 ± 0.52	2.00 ± 0.45	1.12 ± 0.51
P2_Y in arcmin	5.84 ± 1.42	32.16 ± 9.67	4.42 ± 2.06	1.07 ± 0.27	7.31 ± 0.73	0.60 ± 0.20	0.68 ± 0.37
P3_Y in arcmin	6.20 ± 1.12	56.17 ± 12.78	10.31 ± 3.19	3.40 ± 0.36	19.07 ± 2.32	4.00 ± 0.23	4.51 ± 0.56
P1_Z in arcmin	0.45 ± 0.25	7.82 ± 7.29	1.60 ± 0.25	1.04 ± 0.36	1.08 ± 0.39	1.57 ± 0.39	1.49 ± 0.14
P2_Z in arcmin	0.68 ± 0.37	10.39 ± 4.02	1.23 ± 0.24	0.79 ± 0.33	3.50 ± 0.68	1.14 ± 0.33	1.02 ± 0.27
P3_Z in arcmin	0.92 ± 0.35	6.26 ± 3.15	1.42 ± 0.24	0.90 ± 0.43	3.88 ± 0.58	1.52 ± 0.43	1.13 ± 0.22

Discussion

In the current study seven different optical measurement systems were compared regarding their accuracies and zero offset in a round robin test. The measurement systems can be divided into two groups: the ones using active markers, and those using passive reflective markers (Q-400, Pontos, OptiTrack, Core and Aramis). The systems with active markers use either ultrasonic (CMS) or optical infrared (Optotrak) markers. The Optotrak system can be equipped with up to eight position sensors. The measurement systems using passive markers can also be divided in two subgroups. Three systems are stereo camera systems from the same manufacturer and use round passive marker dots (Pontos, Core and Aramis). Two systems can be equipped with multiple cameras, whereby one system uses rigid bodies with spherical markers (OptiTrack) and one uses a speckle pattern for motion detection (Q-400).

Coordinate measurement machine

The results of the zero offset measurements revealed the highest measurement errors for the CMS system for all three directions (mostly above 150 μm). The Optotrak and the OptiTrack system measurement errors were above 100 μm when driving to the position P_Z in z-direction. All other systems showed measurement errors below 20 μm for all directions.

Similar results could be seen for the step-wise translational measurements in the three directions. Except of one position in y-direction (P1) and one position in z-direction (P8), the CMS system had measurement errors of more than 100 μm. The Optotrak system clearly shows an increase in measurement error when increasing the distance, ending with the highest measurement error for P8 and P9 in y-direction (>400 μm) and z-direction (>800 μm) of all measurement systems. The OptiTrack system shows the highest measurement errors of the passive marker systems, except for P1 in x-direction and P7, P8 and P9 in y-direction. In addition, the OptiTrack system shows the highest measurement error of all systems in the z-direction for P7 (>700 μm). The Q-400 system showed, especially for small movements (P1 to P5), good measurement accuracies with errors below 20 μm in all directions. Longer distances resulted in higher measurement errors ending in errors between 59 and 87 μm for P9 in the three directions. Both systems using multiple cameras (OptiTrack and Q-400) showed a trend of an increasing measurement error, when increasing the distance. The measurement errors of the Pontos, the Core and the Aramis systems were below 20 μm for all measurement positions in all three directions. The three stereo camera systems and the CMS system did not show an increasing measurement error with an increasing distance. These results show that the stereo camera systems had the highest measurement accuracies for the zero offset and translational motions up to 100 mm. For longer distances however, no statements can be made.

Manual reference device

The translational measurement errors of the CMS system were the highest when using the manual reference device, having errors of more than 70 μm for all positions in x-direction and errors of more than 200 μm for every position in the other two directions. The second highest measurement errors were detected by the Optotrak system with measurement errors between 10 μm and 82 μm for all positions of the three directions, whereby an increased error for an increased distance can be seen as for the measurements using the CMM. All measurement systems using the passive markers showed measurement errors below 20 μm for the translation in y-direction. For the translation in x-direction, all passive marker systems had measurement errors below 20 μm, except for the OptiTrack system, which showed measurement errors between 20 μm and 30 μm. For the translation in z-direction, all passive marker systems had higher measurement errors than for the other directions, but still below 40 μm. Thus, for very small translational motions, the three stereo camera systems and the Q-400 System showed the lowest measurement errors.

The rotational measurement errors were also the highest for the CMS system for rotations around the y-axis and z-axis. The highest rotational measurement errors for motions around the x-axis were seen for the OptiTrack system followed by the CMS system. The rotational measurement errors for the three stereo camera systems were lowest, not exceeding 5 arcmin. For biomechanical applications, where typically translations and rotations occur, the translational and rotational measurement errors could sum up, which may lead in even higher total measurement errors.

Comparison of the two reference systems

For the CMM as reference system, the distance of the moving markers was compared relative to a fixed marker. For the manual reference system, the distance of the moving markers was determined relative to the same markers in the zero position. Thus, two different evaluation algorithms were used. The CMM is a user independent and reproducible device, which makes it a suitable tool to determine measurement errors of different measurement systems. However, only translational motions can be applied because the CMM only possesses linear motors. The largest movements can be performed in x-direction followed by the z-direction followed by the y-direction. The maximum translation of all axes was determined using the maximum motion of the y-direction. The manual reference device enables the comparison of translational and rotational motions between different measurement systems. However, due to the necessity of a user to adjust the different rotational and translational motions, this system is more prone to individual errors. In addition, only small translational motions can be applied due to the limit of the micrometer screws. For users of camera based motion capture systems who don’t have any high precision reference systems like the CMM, the manual reference device can be a rational and relatively inexpensive option. The translation in x-, y- and z-direction of P4, using the CMM, and P3, using the manual reference system, were both 5 mm in total. Therefore, the measurement errors P4 of the CMM and P3 of the manual device can be compared. For the Optotrak, Pontos, Core and Aramis systems slightly higher errors were detected in the measurements using the manual system in comparison with the CMM. For the OptiTrack system it is the other way round. For the CMS and Q-400 system, the CMM at P4 provoke slightly higher measurement error compared to P3 of the manual device in x-direction, contrarily to the y- and z-directions. However, marker attachment, the distance of the measurement systems to the markers or other environmental factors may have a higher impact on the measurement errors than the reference system or the evaluation algorithm.

Comparison of the different measurement systems

In general, the two measurement systems using active markers showed the highest measurement errors for both reference devices. Comparing these two measurement systems, the Optotrak revealed better measurement accuracies than the CMS system. In the case of the Optotrak, the measurement did not take place in the optimal measurement volume calibrated by the manufacturer. The measurement in the calibrated measurement volume was not possible due to the size of the air-conditioned measurement room. The highest measurement errors for the passive markers systems were seen for the OptiTrack system. The Q-400 system showed good results for all motions, especially for small movements up to 5 mm. The OptiTrack system used seven and the Q-400 system used three cameras. The accuracy could decrease or increase by reducing or adding cameras, depending on the requirements [4]. The best results for the translational and rotational motions were seen for the three stereo camera systems (Pontos, Core and Aramis), which were all from the same manufacturer and use 2D reference point markers. A comparison of different motion capture systems was published by Richards in 1999 using a self-constructed motorized device to change the passive maker positions [15]. Topley and Richards recently repeated the measurements to compare the measurement accuracy of modern optoelectronic motion capture systems with the systems 20 years earlier [16]. They showed that the development of modern motion capture systems led to an advanced measurement accuracy. Compared to the stereo camera measurement systems within this study, the measurements by Topley and Richards revealed much higher measurement errors. However, they used measurement systems and spherical passive markers which are typically used for human motion capture and the distances between the markers were much greater than in the current test. Topley and Richards used a digitizer to determine the positions of the passive markers having an absolute accuracy of 0.036 mm. For the small measurement errors of the measurement systems in the current study, which are partly below 20 μm or even below 10 μm, an even more precise reference system like the manual adjustment unit and the CMM were needed. The measurement systems in the study by Topley and Richards were typically used for human motion capture analysis, where marker positioning and soft tissue motion provoke higher measurement errors than the systems analyzed [16]. One important parameter next to the accuracy is the maximum analyzable volume. A larger analyzable volume leads to a lower resolution and therefore, to a lower accuracy. As shown in Table 1, the active marker systems and the two measurement systems consisting of multiple cameras cover a larger volume than the stereo camera systems. The volumes of the stereo camera systems can be adjusted by using a bigger calibration plate, but only to a limited extend. Hence, the stereo camera systems are not recommended for human motion capture analysis, where large joint motions should be analyzed. Also a speckle pattern, as used by the Q-400 system, seems to be unsuitable for human motion capture analysis, due to the low depth measurement. However, in the current study, the maximum distance for determining the measurement accuracy was in an area of 100 mm, which is much smaller than the distances during human motion analyses. The main goal was to determine the accuracy for biomechanical measurement, like cadaver joint motions and implant fixation, which need a high accuracy. For analysis of cadaver joint motions, all measurement systems of the current study seem to be useful, but this depends on the extent of the motion. For bigger joint motions the systems, which cover a larger volume are more useful. Typically, the rigid body markers systems offer the user the possibility to select bony landmarks and define an anatomic coordinate system, which is a useful tool for measurement of joint kinematics. However, for biomechanical high precision measurements like micro-motions between implant and bone or measurements of the fracture gaps of bones supplied with osteosynthesis plates under loading conditions, where small volumes are sufficient, the passive stereo camera systems of the current study are of mature interest. Depending on the biomechanical application, the maximum frequency of the measurement system is an important factor as well.

Limitations

The study design has some limitations, which need to be addressed. First, general statements about the measurement accuracy cannot be made, as each measurement system is represented only once. Although every laboratory in the round robin test is a frequent user of their measurement system, results could differ when the calibration, measurement and data analysis with the same measurement system is performed by another user. In the current study the data analysis (moving marker to motionless marker for the CMM and moving marker to the same marker at zero position for the manual reference device) were identical between the groups.

Another limitation is the relatively small size of the measurement room (17 m2 floor space and 2.5 m height). For the Optotrak system which covers a big volume the optimum distance between marker and measurement system was not achieved. Therefore, the measurement accuracy of this system is expected to be higher if the minimum distance is given. For the other measuring systems the minimum distance could be guaranteed.

Ultimately, the CMM seems to be a reliable tool for reference measurements of different measurement systems. It has a similar reproducibility and no user could accidentally influence its motions. However, only translational motions can be driven with the CMM.

The manual system seems to be a simple and useful tool to compare the translational and rotational measurement accuracies of different measurement systems. To account for interpersonal difference one user performed the adjustments of the manual device for every group.

Problematic for the determination of the rotatory accuracies around the different axes was the existence of different rotatory units with different accuracies. This means that a comparison of the measurement errors between the three axes of a measuring system is not meaningful. However, a comparison of the different systems regarding the rotational accuracy can be made. The complete tests were run under optimized conditions and the markers were placed on solid bodies. Therefore, the absolute values of measurement errors determined in this study cannot be transferred directly into a biomechanical application, where the markers are typically fixated on soft tissue or bones.

Conclusions

The results of the current study show advantages regarding the measurement accuracy of single motions up to 100 mm for the measurement systems using passive markers and especially for the stereo camera systems. However, depending on the requirements of the user and the application, other factors like the measurement frequency, the maximum analyzable volume, the marker type and the costs for the measurement system are important factors to be considered.

CMM data.

Measurement data from the seven measurement systems using the setup with the coordinate measurement machine. Values of the zero offset measurement and for the measurement points approached in the x, y and z directions.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.

Manual reference device data.

Measurement data from the seven measurement systems using the setup with the manual reference device. Values for the measuring points approached in the x, y and z directions and the rotations performed about these three axes.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.

10 May 2022

14 Jun 2022

Antonio Riveiro Rodríguez, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf.

2. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match.

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

Thank you very much for this hint. We have changed it accordingly.

3. Acknowledgments Section: Move New Information to the Financial Disclosure:

"Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

[The authors would like to thank the MSB-Net for organizing the yearly meeting of biomechanical laboratories for the development and implementation of new project ideas. The current study emerged from the MSB-Net meeting. We acknowledge support by the German Research Foundation (DFG) and the Open Access Publication Fund of Hannover Medical School (MHH).]

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

[The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

Publication costs are covered by the German Research Foundation (DFG) and the Open Access Publication Fund of Hannover Medical School (MHH).]

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section:

[I have read the journal's policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: [Sebastian Jaeger reports grants from B Braun Aesculap, Johnson & Johnson Depuy Synthes, Heraeus Medical, Waldemar Link, Peter Brehm, Ceramtec, Implantcast, Mathys Orthopaedie GmbH and Zimmer Biomet that are not related to the current study]

.

Please confirm that this does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials, by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests). If there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

Please include your updated Competing Interests statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

5. Please amend either the abstract on the online submission form (via Edit Submission) or the abstract in the manuscript so that they are identical.

Thank you very much for this hint. We have changed it accordingly.

6. Please include a caption for figure 4.

Thank you for pointing this out. We have added the caption to the manuscript.

7. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

We have thoroughly checked the references again

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

________________________________________

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

________________________________________

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

________________________________________

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

________________________________________

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Authors presented the comparison between different camera-based systems for movement analysis. In general, the paper is well-written and presents important information for researchers in biomechanics and instrumentation. However, some clarifications are needed.

Thanks a lot for your positive feedback. All information (line numbers) on the changes refer to the document "Revised Manuscript with Track changes".

- More discussion on each test should be included, the setups should be clearer presented as well as the positioning of each measurement system.

Thank you for your suggestion. We added the following parts to the method section:

Line 130 and 132: “…is positioned in the corner of the measurement room and has an accuracy of 2.0 µm. The size of the measurement room is 17 m2 floor space and 2.5 m height.”

Line 136: “Two adapters, having a flat rectangular surface,…”

Line 148 – 151: “Thus, for each axis, six measurements were performed at zero position and five measurements were performed at a distance of 10 mm. The distances from the moving adapter were determined in relation to the markers of the motionless adapter and compared to the real motion of the CMM to calculate the measurement errors. “

Line 152-153: “…the same approach was used as for the previous measurement, but…”

Line 157-158: “After each position, a measurement was performed. Using this method, the measurement errors could be determined from very low motions (0.1 mm) to larger distances (100 mm).”

Line 170-172: “The manual reference device was fixated at a stable metal frame, which was positioned next to the CMM in the same measurement room. The different markers were fixated on the front plate of the reference device.”

Line 173-174: “Therefore, no reference markers on any motionless part were needed.”

Line 179: “Measurement were taken at each of the indicated positions.”

Furthermore, the following parts were implemented to the discussion section:

Line 314-325: “The CMM is a user independent and reproducible device, which makes it a suitable tool to determine measurement errors of different measurement systems. However, only translational motions can be applied because the CMM only possesses linear motors. The largest movements can be performed in x-direction followed by the z-direction followed by the y-direction. The maximum translation of all axes was determined using the maximum motion of the y-direction. The manual reference device enables the comparison of translational and rotational motions between different measurement systems. However, due to the necessity of a user to adjust the different rotational and translational motions, this system is more prone to individual errors. In addition, only small translational motions can be applied due to the limit of the micrometer screws. For users of camera based motion capture systems who don’t have any high precision reference systems like the CMM, the manual reference device can be a rational and relatively inexpensive option.”

- Limit of detection of each technology should be clarified.

Thank you very much. We already stated the detection limit of the system according to the producer’s declarations in Table 1 within the point “Measurement Accuracy”. In addition, the study should help to get the “real” accuracy limits.

Next to the accuracy further limits were found in Tab. 1 like the maximum analyzable volume and the maximum measurement frequency. We added possible applications for each measurement system to the discussion part with the focus on the specific limits.

Line 368-380: However, in the current study, the maximum distance for determining the measurement accuracy was in an area of 100 mm, which is much smaller than the distances during human motion analyses. The main goal was to determine the accuracy for biomechanical measurement, like cadaver joint motions and implant fixation, which need a high accuracy. For analysis of cadaver joint motions, all measurement systems of the current study seem to be useful, but this depends on the extent of the motion. For bigger joint motions the systems, which cover a larger volume are more useful. Typically, the rigid body markers systems offer the user the possibility to select bony landmarks and define an anatomic coordinate system, which is a useful tool for measurement of joint kinematics. Depending on the biomechanical application, the maximum frequency of the measurement system is an important factor as well.

- More discussion of the preferable system for each test should be included.

Thanks for this comment. We tried to sum up the results in the discussion part and describe the differences between the systems regarding the accuracy and possible biomechanical applications. A detailed discussion of the different systems could, in our view, lead to an emphasis on certain measurement systems, which we do not intend to do due to our required neutrality. We tried to expand the discussion as followed:

Line 286-289: The three stereo camera systems and the CMS system did not show an increasing measurement error with an increasing distance. These results show that the stereo camera systems had the highest measurement accuracies for the zero offset and translational motions up to 100 mm. For longer distances however, no statements can be made.

Line 301-303: Thus, for very small translational motions, the three stereo camera systems and the Q-400 System showed the lowest measurement errors.

Line 307-309: For biomechanical applications, where typically translations and rotations occur, the translational and rotational measurement errors could sum up, which may lead in even higher total measurement errors.

- There is an error in the figure numbering.

You are right, we changed it accordingly.

Reviewer #2: Review of „Accuracy measurement of different marker-based motion analysis systems for biomechanical applications: A round robin study”

This paper is a review and at the same time a benchmarking article for different marker-based motion analysis system. The main importance of this paper is to provide objective accuracy measurement, which is beneficial for researchers who are about to purchase new equipment for laboratory or existing laboratories to refer to solid error measurements for their works. Authors present clear and reliable study with good presentation of background and results. This work is written in a device-oriented manner, whereas in the title there are biomechanical applications. I wish to present some issues that could contribute to further improvement of this work.

Thank you very much for your positive feedback. All information (line numbers) on the changes refer to the document "Revised Manuscript with Track changes".

1. From method section in abstract, you pointed out that study was performed in one room. In method section line 97-100 you said that laboratories were tested. I think that it requires clarification, if by laboratories you meant equipment or there were different rooms in each laboratory.

Thanks for the hint that was not clear. In fact, all measurements were performed in the same room in the same laboratory. Different measurement systems of different laboratories were tested.

We changed the Sentence in Line 98-99 accordingly: “All measurements were performed in the same standardized temperature-controlled (22 ± 1°C) precision measurement room.“

2. This study could provide more information about measurement circumstances. In 2nd section you also stated that the room was temperature controlled. For purpose of making this study replicable, I think that you should add information about exact temperature in the room if someone wish to repeat your setup.

Good point, we added the information of the room temperature accordingly.

Line 99: (22 ± 1°C)

3. In line 71 you mentioned that skin and general circumstances of marker attachment makes it prone to measurement errors. I cannot find in description if you tried to mimic the body tissue or markers were put on solid surface of the device. If so, this could also be mentioned as limitation of the study.

For the current study we wanted to compare the measurement accuracy of different motion capture systems under optimum conditions. Therefore, we placed the markers on solid bodies.

We added the following part to the limitation section:

Line 406-409: “The complete tests were run under optimized conditions and the markers were placed on solid bodies. Therefore, the absolute values of measurement errors determined in this study cannot be transferred directly into a biomechanical application, where the markers are typically fixated on soft tissue or bones.”

4. From now on I would focus on your limitations, or rather lack of specificity of setup descriptions. You lack specifics in terms of this issues. Line 356 – data analysis could be user-specific. You mentioned that some computations were made for device designed software, but you do not share exact computation methods for each device. Is it irrelevant or you based on raw results? If algorithms could vary, for the same sake of repeatability, you should supplement that information.

Yes, good point. In general, the data analysis influences the results. For good group comparison, we specified the type of data analysis. We added the following to the limitation section:

Line 387-389: In the current study the data analysis (moving marker to motionless marker for the CMM and moving marker to the same marker at zero position for the manual reference device) were identical between the groups.

5. If you state that size of the room could affect measurements – please provide the size data for this room. Line 358.

Yes, we added the size of the room.

Line 131-132 & 390: (17 m2 floor space and 2.5 m height).

6. Line 362 – what do you mean by slightly larger distance? Could you please provide “ideal” conditions for measurement setup? For example, manufacturer recommendations?#

The slightly larger distance was more like a feeling from the experience of the user. The Co-authors found some information about the necessary distance between measurement system and object, which was 80-100 cm. Therefore, the optimum distance was given for the OptiTrack system and we deleted the following text accordingly: “For the OptiTrack system, there is no specification for a minimum distance, but from the experience of the users, a slightly larger distance would probably also lead to better results.”

7. I think that discussion also lacks with reference to actual biomechanical measurements. For human movement, test for movement with 10 cm range is good for pelvis movement during walking or hand manipulation. I suspect that with increase of movement speed and gross motor analysis like swings or kicks errors could be much greater. Could you please extrapolate results or makes this issue as another limitation, based on your own judgement? One sentence at the end of paper is not satisfying.

Thank you for this comment. You are right, the range of 100 mm is too small for typical human motion analyses. In our round robin tests we focused on biomechanical applications, which need high accuracies and have small ranges. These are mainly cadaver joint and implant fixation analyses. We believe that for human motion analyses during gait or sport activities accuracies below 100 µm are not absolutely necessary, which of course also depends on the respective research question. We added the following to the discussion part:

Line 368-380: However, in the current study, the maximum distance for determining the measurement accuracy was in an area of 100 mm, which is much smaller than the distances during human motion analyses. The main goal was to determine the accuracy for biomechanical measurement, like cadaver joint motions and implant fixation, which need a high accuracy. For analysis of cadaver joint motions, all measurement systems of the current study seem to be useful, but this depends on the extent of the motion. For bigger joint motions the systems, which cover a larger volume are more useful. Typically, the rigid body markers systems offer the user the possibility to select bony landmarks and define an anatomic coordinate system, which is a useful tool for measurement of joint kinematics. However, for biomechanical high precision measurements like micro-motions between implant and bone or measurements of the fracture gaps of bones supplied with osteosynthesis plates under loading conditions, where small volumes are sufficient, the passive stereo camera systems of the current study are of mature interest.

And furthermore, depending on the biomechanical research question, the maximum frequency of each measurement system is also an important factor. We added the following:

Line 379-380: Depending on the biomechanical application, the maximum frequency of the measurement system is an important factor as well.

In my opinion this paper can be publish after minor revision, focusing on providing more experiment setup data for scientific community.

I wish you good luck with further work.

________________________________________

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Dariusz Mosler

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

________________________________________

In compliance with data protection regulations, you may request that we remove your personal registration details at any time. (Remove my information/details). Please contact the publication office if you have any questions.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

29 Jun 2022

Accuracy measurement of different marker based motion analysis systems for biomechanical applications: A round robin study

PONE-D-22-08505R1

Dear Dr. Welke,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Antonio Riveiro Rodríguez, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Authors addressed my comments and suggestions. I recommend the publication of this paper in the current format

Reviewer #2: As all issues have been adressed in a proper manner, and I indicate that only minor changes should be done, I recommend publishing this paper. Good luck for the author and I am looking formward to another, more extensive studies of this kind from your team.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Dariusz Mosler

**********

1 Jul 2022

PONE-D-22-08505R1

Accuracy measurement of different marker based motion analysis systems for biomechanical applications: A round robin study

Dear Dr. Welke:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Antonio Riveiro Rodríguez

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE