Objective gait assessment is increasingly needed beyond specialized laboratories, and 3D markerless motion capture is emerging as a viable option; however, evidence regarding its applied repeatability and practical use for spatiotemporal gait outcomes in scalable clinical and field settings remains limited. This study evaluated the applied repeatability and practical comparability of OpenCap (camera-based; CM) versus a commonly accepted photoelectric walkway (OptoGait; OPT). Thirty-nine healthy adults completed three 10-m overground trials at self-selected speed. CM parameters were derived from OpenCap's Advanced Overground Gait Analysis. Within-device reliability was good-to-excellent for gait speed, stride length, and cadence (ICC (3,1) = 0.734-0.920 OPT; 0.791-0.917 CM) and excellent when averaging three trials (ICC (3,3) = 0.892-0.972 OPT; 0.919-0.971 CM); double support showed lower reliability (ICC (3,1) = 0.527 OPT; 0.647 CM). Between devices, CM showed higher mean speed (+0.110 m/s), stride length (+0.127 m), and double support (+3.17% of the gait cycle), while cadence was very similar (-0.59 spm). Correlations were high for speed (r = 0.951), stride length (r = 0.864), and cadence (r = 0.983) but moderate for double support (r = 0.405); absolute-agreement ICCs were highest for cadence (0.980) and lowest for double support (0.271). OpenCap provides reliable within-session estimates for key spatiotemporal measures, but systematic bias indicates it should be used consistently as a standalone tool rather than interchangeably with OptoGait without device-specific correction or reference values.

Smartphone-Based Markerless Motion Capture for Spatiotemporal Gait Assessment: Applied Within-Session Reliability and Comparability of OpenCap Versus OptoGait

Vitarelli, Matteo;
2026-01-01

Abstract

Objective gait assessment is increasingly needed beyond specialized laboratories, and 3D markerless motion capture is emerging as a viable option; however, evidence regarding its applied repeatability and practical use for spatiotemporal gait outcomes in scalable clinical and field settings remains limited. This study evaluated the applied repeatability and practical comparability of OpenCap (camera-based; CM) versus a commonly accepted photoelectric walkway (OptoGait; OPT). Thirty-nine healthy adults completed three 10-m overground trials at self-selected speed. CM parameters were derived from OpenCap's Advanced Overground Gait Analysis. Within-device reliability was good-to-excellent for gait speed, stride length, and cadence (ICC (3,1) = 0.734-0.920 OPT; 0.791-0.917 CM) and excellent when averaging three trials (ICC (3,3) = 0.892-0.972 OPT; 0.919-0.971 CM); double support showed lower reliability (ICC (3,1) = 0.527 OPT; 0.647 CM). Between devices, CM showed higher mean speed (+0.110 m/s), stride length (+0.127 m), and double support (+3.17% of the gait cycle), while cadence was very similar (-0.59 spm). Correlations were high for speed (r = 0.951), stride length (r = 0.864), and cadence (r = 0.983) but moderate for double support (r = 0.405); absolute-agreement ICCs were highest for cadence (0.980) and lowest for double support (0.271). OpenCap provides reliable within-session estimates for key spatiotemporal measures, but systematic bias indicates it should be used consistently as a standalone tool rather than interchangeably with OptoGait without device-specific correction or reference values.
2026
MDC
OpenCap
OptoGait
SEM
gait
gait analysis
markerless motion capture
reliability
spatiotemporal
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
sensors-26-01234-v2.pdf

accesso aperto

Descrizione: CC BY 4.0 publisher version
Tipologia: Versione dell'editore
Licenza: Creative commons
Dimensione 772.75 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
772.75 kB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11562/1187507
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 1
  • Scopus 0
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 0
social impact