Next Article in Journal
Sensing in the Collaborative Internet of Things
Next Article in Special Issue
Heart Rate Variability Monitoring during Sleep Based on Capacitively Coupled Textile Electrodes on a Bed
Previous Article in Journal
New Calibration Method Using Low Cost MEM IMUs to Verify the Performance of UAV-Borne MMS Payloads
Previous Article in Special Issue
New Lower-Limb Gait Asymmetry Indices Based on a Depth Camera
Open AccessArticle

Tracking Systems for Virtual Rehabilitation: Objective Performance vs. Subjective Experience. A Practical Scenario

1
Instituto Interuniversitario de Investigación en Bioingeniería y Tecnología Orientada al Ser Humano, Universitat Politècnica de València, Camino de Vera s/n, 46022 Valencia, Spain
2
Servicio de Neurorrehabilitación y Daño Cerebral de los Hospitales NISA, Fundación Hospitales NISA, 46022 Valencia, Spain
3
Ciber, Fisiopatología Obesidad y Nutrición, CB06/03 Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Av. Sos Baynat s/n, Univesity of Jaume I, 12071 Castellón, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Academic Editor: Panicos Kyriacou
Sensors 2015, 15(3), 6586-6606; https://doi.org/10.3390/s150306586
Received: 30 January 2015 / Revised: 5 March 2015 / Accepted: 13 March 2015 / Published: 19 March 2015
(This article belongs to the Collection Sensors for Globalized Healthy Living and Wellbeing)
Motion tracking systems are commonly used in virtual reality-based interventions to detect movements in the real world and transfer them to the virtual environment. There are different tracking solutions based on different physical principles, which mainly define their performance parameters. However, special requirements have to be considered for rehabilitation purposes. This paper studies and compares the accuracy and jitter of three tracking solutions (optical, electromagnetic, and skeleton tracking) in a practical scenario and analyzes the subjective perceptions of 19 healthy subjects, 22 stroke survivors, and 14 physical therapists. The optical tracking system provided the best accuracy (1.074 ± 0.417 cm) while the electromagnetic device provided the most inaccurate results (11.027 ± 2.364 cm). However, this tracking solution provided the best jitter values (0.324 ± 0.093 cm), in contrast to the skeleton tracking, which had the worst results (1.522 ± 0.858 cm). Healthy individuals and professionals preferred the skeleton tracking solution rather than the optical and electromagnetic solution (in that order). Individuals with stroke chose the optical solution over the other options. Our results show that subjective perceptions and preferences are far from being constant among different populations, thus suggesting that these considerations, together with the performance parameters, should be also taken into account when designing a rehabilitation system. View Full-Text
Keywords: motion tracking; virtual reality; virtual rehabilitation; optical tracking; electromagnetic tracking; Kinect; stroke motion tracking; virtual reality; virtual rehabilitation; optical tracking; electromagnetic tracking; Kinect; stroke
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Lloréns, R.; Noé, E.; Naranjo, V.; Borrego, A.; Latorre, J.; Alcañiz, M. Tracking Systems for Virtual Rehabilitation: Objective Performance vs. Subjective Experience. A Practical Scenario. Sensors 2015, 15, 6586-6606.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats

Article Access Map

1
Only visits after 24 November 2015 are recorded.
Back to TopTop