English

Selecting Optimal Camera Views for Gait Analysis: A Multi-Metric Assessment of 2D Projections

Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition 2025-09-23 v1

Abstract

Objective: To systematically quantify the effect of the camera view (frontal vs. lateral) on the accuracy of 2D markerless gait analysis relative to 3D motion capture ground truth. Methods: Gait data from 18 subjects were recorded simultaneously using frontal, lateral and 3D motion capture systems. Pose estimation used YOLOv8. Four metrics were assessed to evaluate agreement: Dynamic Time Warping (DTW) for temporal alignment, Maximum Cross-Correlation (MCC) for signal similarity, Kullback-Leibler Divergence (KLD) for distribution differences, and Information Entropy (IE) for complexity. Wilcoxon signed-rank tests (significance: p<0.05p < 0.05) and Cliff's delta (δ\delta) were used to measure statistical differences and effect sizes. Results: Lateral views significantly outperformed frontal views for sagittal plane kinematics: step length (DTW: 53.08±24.5053.08 \pm 24.50 vs. 69.87±25.3669.87 \pm 25.36, p=0.005p = 0.005) and knee rotation (DTW: 106.46±38.57106.46 \pm 38.57 vs. 155.41±41.77155.41 \pm 41.77, p=0.004p = 0.004). Frontal views were superior for symmetry parameters: trunk rotation (KLD: 0.09±0.060.09 \pm 0.06 vs. 0.30±0.190.30 \pm 0.19, p<0.001p < 0.001) and wrist-to-hipmid distance (MCC: 105.77±29.72105.77 \pm 29.72 vs. 75.20±20.3875.20 \pm 20.38, p=0.003p = 0.003). Effect sizes were medium-to-large (δ:0.34\delta: 0.34--0.760.76). Conclusion: Camera view critically impacts gait parameter accuracy. Lateral views are optimal for sagittal kinematics; frontal views excel for trunk symmetry. Significance: This first systematic evidence enables data-driven camera deployment in 2D gait analysis, enhancing clinical utility. Future implementations should leverage both views via disease-oriented setups.

Keywords

Cite

@article{arxiv.2509.17805,
  title  = {Selecting Optimal Camera Views for Gait Analysis: A Multi-Metric Assessment of 2D Projections},
  author = {Dong Chen and Huili Peng and Yong Hu and Kenneth MC. Cheung},
  journal= {arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.17805},
  year   = {2025}
}