Development of Computer System for Digital Measurement of

Human Body: Initial Findings

Darko Katović

, Igor Gruić

, Anita Bušić

, Tomislav Bronzin

, Krešimir Pažin

, Filip Bolčević

Vladimir Medved

and Marjeta Mišigoj-Duraković

Faculty of Kinesiology, University of Zagreb, Horvaćanski zavoj 15, Zagreb, Croatia

Live Good j.d.o.o., Zagreb, Croatia

Citus d.o.o., Zagreb, Croatia

Keywords: Anthropometry, Measurement Reliability, Kinect, Protocol Modelling.

Abstract: Background: Microsoft Kinect is used in the field of anthropometry (Sameijma et al., 2012; Xu et al., 2013;

Clarkson et al., 2016; Zhang et al., 2015), gait analysis (Springer & Seligman, 2016; Pfister et al., 2014;

Motiian et al., 2015; Prochazka et al., 2015; Cippitelli et al., 2015), motor performance (Lim et al., 2015;

Sevick et al., 2016; Taha et. al., 2016), posture/balance evaluation (Dutta et al., 2014; Metiplay et al., 2013;

Oh et al., 2014; Saenz-de-Urturi & Garcia-Zapirain Soto, 2016) and rehabilitation (Galna et al., 2014; Mobini

et al., 2015; De Rosario et al., 2014; Shapi’i et al., 2015). Reliability of instruments in clinical and sport

application differ, therefore the goal of this research was to initially determine the protocol of validation of a

new measuring instrument for digital measurement of anthropometric dimensions of the body (structural and

metric). Reliability of results in this paper was tested on three classically and digitally measured

anthropometric variables, i.e. height, left forearm length and left lower leg length. Methods: Male and female

employees of the Technology Park Zagreb (N=52) volunteered for this research. Subjects were wearing their

everyday clothes. Among 471 assessed variables (3 + ((26 * 6)) * 3) three variables from a set of classically

measured anthropometric dimensions were extracted - height, length of left forearm and length of left lower

leg. Classical measurements were conducted through standard IBP protocols, a Standardized protocol for

digital measurement (DM-I) was produced. Data were analyzed by Statistica 12 for Windows operating

system. Mean, standard deviation, range, variability coefficient, skewness and kurtosis were used as

descriptive parameters, as well as Pearson correlation coefficient, Spearman-Brown alpha, Cronbach`s alpha

and Spearman-Brown (standardized) alpha. Results: Classically and digitally measured height in average

results do not differ significantly, while for lengths of the left forearm and the left lower leg do indicate

significant differences (lower values). The differences could be attributed to different reference points used

in two measurement methods. Measures of internal consistency (reliability) for digitally measured variables:

height of the body, length of left forearm and length of left lower leg demonstrate high reliability (Cronbach

alpha, the standardized alpha 0.995 to 0.997) and the average inter-item correlation (0.973 to 0.985), indicates

a high internal consistency between items related to digitally measured height. Reliability was slightly lower

for digitally measured length of the left forearm and lower leg due to greater differentiation in average inter-

item correlations coefficients. Conclusions: Digital measurements with Kinect are not appropriate for clinical

trials demanding high precision. There is no statistical evidence that could differentiate distances of examinee

from Kinect sensor in order to define optimal distance (as long as subject stands within Kinects range. Small

errors occur due to clothing, possibly due to illumination, and sensor height and distance, which is in line with

previous research.

1 INTRODUCTION

Anthropometry plays an important role in industrial

design, clothing design, ergonomics and architecture.

Morphological data is used to optimize products for

particular populations and purposes. Lifestyle

changes, changes in diet and ethnic profiles of given

populations lead to morphological changes (e.g.

obesity pandemy). Importance of possessing exact

morphological data is crucial in order to react

adequately to current problems. Therefore, it is

important to regularly gather new morphological

data.

Katovi

c, D., Grui

c, I., Buši

c, A., Bronzin, T., Pažin, K., Bol

cevi

c, F., Medved, V. and Mišigoj-Durakovi

c, M.

Development of Computer System for Digital Measurement of Human Body: Initial Findings.

DOI: 10.5220/0006086001470153

In Proceedings of the 4th International Congress on Sport Sciences Research and Technology Support (icSPORTS 2016), pages 147-153

ISBN: 978-989-758-205-9

147

Various methods of human body assessment use

various instruments. In the fashion industry, a

common instrument is the measurement tape, while

in biomedical sciences anthropometric instruments

include: anthropometer, pelvimeter, caliper,

centimeter tape, etc. Digital measurement methods

for human body assessment use various electronic

systems (e.g. Kinect, Structure Sensor). These

methods range from laser scanners to mobile

applications (e.g. Tailor Measure and Nettelo). Three-

dimensional scanners enable innovative and quick

digital anthropometric measurements based on

gathered information from sensors, e.g. Kinect

sensor.

Microsoft Kinect is used in the field of

anthropometrics (Sameijma et al., 2012; Xu et al.,

2013; Clarkson et al., 2016; Zhang et al., 2015), gait

analysis (Springer & Seligman, 2016; Pfister et al.,

2014; Motiian et al., 2015; Prochazka et al., 2015;

Cippitelli et al., 2015), motor performance (Lim et al.,

2015; Sevick et al., 2016; Taha et. al., 2016),

posture/balance training (Dutta et al., 2014;

Mentiplay et al., 2013; Oh et al., 2014; Saenz-de-

Urturi & Garcia-Zapirain Soto, 2016) and

rehabilitation (Galna et al., 2014; Mobini et al., 2015;

De Rosario et al., 2014; Shapi’i et al., 2015).

Reliability of instruments in clinical and sport

application differ, therefore the goal of this research

was to initially determine:

a) The protocol of validation of a new

measuring instrument for digital

measurement of anthropometric dimensions

of the body (structural and metric),

b) The Kinect anthropometric measurement

error based on comparison with classical

anthropometry,

c) The optimal distance between a subject and

the Kinect sensor,

d) The optimal number of measurements for a

given distance, etc.

The reliability of the Kinect sensor for three

digitally measured anthropometric variables, i.e.

height, left forearm length and left lower leg length

will be calculated. Based on initial findings, later it

will be possible to integrate future findings into sport

applications and clinical applications related to other

analyses conducted in a biomechanics laboratory (e.g.

gait, pedobarography ect.)

2 METHODS

2.1 Subjects

Male and female employees of Technology Park

Zagreb (N=52) volunteered for this research.

Subjects were wearing their everyday clothes.

2.2 Variables

Among 471 assessed variables (3 + ((26 * 6)) * 3)

three variables from a set of classically measured

anthropometric dimensions were extracted - height,

length of left forearm and length of left lower leg.

Classical measurement procedures for assessing

anthropometric dimensions were carried out

according to the pre-defined and standardized IBP

(International Biological Program) protocol (Mišigoj-

Duraković, 2008).

Standardized measurement protocol for digital

measurement of anthropometric dimensions, using a

device, was defined via equipment, procedures and

instructions, controlled during measurement of each

entity for full control of factors that may affect the

accuracy of measurements.

2.3 Classical Anthropometric and

Kinect Measurement Protocols

Standardized measurement protocol is predefined by

IBP. Standardized protocol for digital measurement

(DM-I) was: Run time: The total estimated duration

of the test for one subject is 6-8 minutes. Number of

measurers: 2. Technical requirements: A computer

with configuration: 64-bit (x64) dual-core, 3.1 GHz

or faster (Intel i3, i5 or i7), USB 3.0 controller

dedicated for Kinect v2 sensor (Intel or Renasens

chipset), 4 GB of RAM, the graphics card that

supports DirectX 11, Windows 8, 8.1 or Windows 10,

and Kinect version 2 for Windows. Description: The

test was performed in a room with minimum

dimensions 3 x 4 m. Kinect and computer device were

on the table 75 cm high, with lines showing distance

of 200 cm, 230 cm and 260 cm from the Kinect (a

tape on the floor that followed an imaginary line

perpendicular to Kinect). The initial position of the

examinees: The subject stands upright in a straddle

stand facing the measuring instrument, feet spread at

hips-width and rotated outward (V-position). The

hands are placed parallel to the trunk and away from

it forming a 35-45 degree angle. Examinees’ view

was focused straight ahead in the direction of

measuring device. The proper starting position and

distance of subjects from instrument was checked by

icSPORTS 2016 - 4th International Congress on Sport Sciences Research and Technology Support

148

measurer before issuing instructions to start with

protocol. Measurement of performance: After

coming into the position to measure, participants

were supposed to raise their left arm, which starts the

process of positioning the object of measurement by

the device. After dropping an arm and coming into the

initial default position, measurer activates

measurement procedure, and an examinee retains

position until next instructions. The task was

performed six times on each of three default

distances. Between individual attempts, examinee has

to leave the position and to come back. Completion of

performance measurement: The task is completed

when the subject performs six registered

measurements on each of the three default distances.

Position of measurers: The first measurer was in a

position that allows him to control the position of the

examinee in the measurement, visual inspection of

the task and the registration results. Another measurer

enters codes of each measurement in a prepared table.

Recording the results: The device automatically

registers the default digital (anthropometric)

measures (3 x 6 measurements) in centimeters (with

a precision of 1 decimal). After each measurement,

measurer records identification number of a

measurement in the prepared table. Remark: The

examinee may begin the process of positioning at any

time, raising his left hand after he was warned by the

measurer that the instrument is ready. If the result

wasn’t registered for any reason, measurement

procedure must be repeated. Information to the

examinee: [task was demonstrated and described

simultaneously] “This protocol measures the

dimensions of your body. To start measuring, your

task will be, after taking a starting position at a given

distance, to raise and lower the left arm. Stand

upright, facing the screen of the monitor, with eyes

directed forward. The arms are slightly separated

from the body, extended at the elbows, fingers

outstretched and hands in continuation of the

extended forearm.” (Measurer demonstrates the

position of the body and at the same time describes)

“The task will be repeated six times, on each of the

preset distances. On the measurer’s sign, after each

recorded measurement, you will leave your position

and return back. Is your task clear? Take the starting

position and prepare for measurements.”

2.4 Statistical Analysis

Data were analyzed by Statistica 12 for Windows

operating system. Mean, standard deviation, range,

variability coefficient, skewness and kurtosis were

used as descriptive parameters, supported by the

Pearson correlation coefficient, Spearman-Brown

alpha, Cronbach`s alpha and Spearman-Brown

(standardized) alpha in validation analysis.

3 RESULTS

Comparing parameters of descriptive variables -

height (classically and digitally measured), it is

evident that the average results of digitally measured

heights do not differ significantly from the classically

measured heights, which were followed by the

standard deviation values (Graph 1), the coefficient of

variation and form of distribution parameters (Table

1 - in Addition 1).

Arit.Sred

Arit.Sred+SD

Arit.Sred+1,96*SD

A_L_potkoljenica

D1-[4]

D2-[4]

D3-[4]

Graph 1: Descriptive parameters for variables of height, left

forearm length and left lower leg length.

The descriptive parameters of variables - left

forearm length and left lower leg length (classically

and digitally measured), indicate significant

differences (lower values) between average results

digitally measured in relation to results in the

classically measured variables (Table 1). The value of

parameters of standard deviation (Graph 1) and the

total range of digitally measured results are lower

than classically measured lengths of the left forearm.

The difference is attributed to different reference

points used in two measurement methods.

A_visina D1-[1] D2-[1] D3-[1]

155

160

165

170

175

180

185

190

195

A_L_podlaktica D1-[15] D2-[15] D3-[15]

Development of Computer System for Digital Measurement of Human Body: Initial Findings

149

Table 1: Descriptive parameters for variables hight, left forearm and left lower legTable 1: Descriptive parameters for

variables hight, left forearm and left lower leg.

Mean.

Std.Dev.

Minimum

Maksimum

Range

Var Coef..

Skewness

Kurtosis

A_Height

176,41

8,19

159,00

192,30

33,30

4,64

-0,14

-0,30

D1-[1]

177,06

8,12

160,46

197,69

37,23

4,59

0,07

0,05

D2-[1]

176,10

8,48

159,50

197,89

38,39

4,82

0,11

0,05

D3-[1]

176,11

8,31

159,13

196,92

37,80

4,72

0,04

-0,06

A_L_forearm

26,94

1,77

23,10

30,70

7,60

6,57

0,07

-0,15

D1-[15]

23,92

1,40

21,35

26,47

5,12

5,87

0,01

-0,63

D2-[15]

23,77

1,48

21,00

26,38

5,38

6,21

0,02

-0,84

D3-[15]

23,56

1,55

20,33

28,42

8,08

6,59

0,45

0,98

A_L_lower leg

39,36

2,71

32,60

46,30

13,70

6,89

-0,08

0,07

D1-[4]

35,11

2,59

30,18

41,32

11,13

7,37

0,16

-0,03

D2-[4]

34,93

2,35

30,32

42,00

11,68

6,72

0,24

0,50

D3-[4]

35,74

2,38

30,40

41,30

10,90

6,67

-0,07

-0,15

A_height Standard measured height, D1-[1] Digitally measured height at distance of 200 cm, D2-[1] Digitally

measured height at distance of 230 cm, D3-[1] Digitally measured height at distance of 260 cm.;A_L_forearm

Standard measured length of left forearm, D1-[15] Digitally measured length of left forearm at distance of 200

cm, D2-[15] Digitally measured length of left forearm at distance of 230 cm, D3-[15] Digitally measured length

of left forearm at distance of 260 cm.; A_L_lower leg Standard measured length of left lower leg, D1-[4] Digitally

measured length of left lower leg at distance of 200 cm, D2-[4] Digitally measured length of left lower leg at

distance of 230 cm, D3-[4] Digitally measured length of left lower leg at distance of 260 cm.

Reliability of a relatively new digital measuring

instrument was determined by the method of internal

consistency (appropriate for this type of composite

measuring instrument). Measures of internal

consistency for digitally measured variables: body

height, left forearm length and left lower leg length

(measured six times at each of three distances - Table

2) demonstrate high reliability. (Cronbach alpha, the

standardized alpha 0.995 to 0.997) and the average

inter-item correlation (0.973 to 0.985), indicate a high

internal consistency between items related to digitally

measured heights. Reliability coefficients for

digitally measured left forearm and lower leg lengths

was slightly lower (greater differentiation in average

inter-item correlations).

Simulation of the possible impact of reduced

number of items indicated a decline of reliability (e.g.

in digitally measured height at a distance of 200 cm,

and after removing the last 3 items, Cronbach alpha

reduced its value to 0.987). Same simulation for

digitally measured left forearm length revealed a

value reduction of Cronbach alpha from 0.9777 to

0.952, which could consequently result in an increase

of the standard error of measurement.

Analysis of differences between the descriptive

parameters (Table 3 – in addition 1, with the

accompanying graph 2) of classically and digitally

measured variables (body height, left forearm length

Table 2: Coefficients of reliability for variables hight, left

forearm and left lower leg.

Cronbach

alpha

Standardiz.

Alpha

Average

inter-item

correlation

D-1[1]

0,995

0,973

D-2[1]

0,997

0,985

D-3[1]

0,997

0,985

D-1[15]

0,983

0,914

D-2[15]

0,990

0,991

0,952

D-2[15]

0,990

0,949

D-1[4]

0,978

0,979

0,887

D-2[4]

0,987

0,988

0,932

D-3[4]

0,97

0,886

and left lower leg length), reveal the size of

systematic and non-systematic errors and its effect on

measurement results. Increased variability (standard

deviation, total range, coefficient of variation)

indicate a presence of large quantities of non-

systematic errors probably caused by technical

/environmental factors. Differences in heights and left

forearm lengths increase by distance, while

differences in lower leg lengths relatively decrease in

variability by an increase in distance.

icSPORTS 2016 - 4th International Congress on Sport Sciences Research and Technology Support

150

Table 3: Differences in descriptive parameters for variables hight, left forearm and left lower leg.

Mean.

Std.Dev.

Minimum

Maksimum

Range

Var Coef..

Skewness

Kurtosis

d1_height

0,660000

2,775005

-5,39333

6,603333

11,99667

420,455

0,056505

-0,341834

d2_height

0,044864

2,892967

-7,37500

5,585000

12,96000

6448,312

-0,107315

-0,006973

d3_height

-0,345400

3,054981

-6,52833

5,328333

11,85667

-884,476

0,016068

-0,688745

d1_L_forearm

-3,03700

1,134939

-5,56667

-0,866667

4,700000

-37,3704

-0,400635

-0,146473

d2_L_forearm

-3,14354

1,211910

-7,11667

-0,916667

6,200000

-38,5524

-0,886378

1,451982

d3_L_forearm

-3,38433

1,481333

-7,21667

-0,483333

6,733333

-43,7703

-0,697201

0,538982

d1_L_lower leg

-4,25300

2,312616

-9,9333

2,716667

12,65000

-54,3761

-0,160595

1,364843

d2_L_lower leg

-4,35306

2,180120

-10,2167

3,400000

13,61667

-50,0825

0,183605

3,541605

d3_L_lower leg

-3,65567

2,126289

-9,2000

2,916667

12,11667

-58,1642

0,060458

1,395540

d1_height – variable of difference between digitally and standard height measure at distance of 200cm,

d2_height – variable of difference between digitally and standard height measure at distance of 230cm,

d3_height – variable of difference between digitally and standard height measure at distance of 260cm.;

d1_L_forearm – variable of difference between digitally and standard left forearm measure at distance of 200cm,

d2_L_forearm – variable of difference between digitally and standard left forearm measure at distance of 230cm,

d3_L_forearm – variable of difference between digitally and standard left forearm measure at distance of

260cm; d1_L_forearm – variable of difference between digitally and standard left lower leg measure at distance

of 200cm, d2_L_forearm – variable of difference between digitally and standard left lower leg measure at

distance of 230cm, d3_L_forearm – variable of difference between digitally and standard left lower leg measure

at distance of 260cm.

Arit.Sred

Arit.Sred+SD

Arit.Sred+1,96*SD

d1_visina d2_visina d3_visina

-8

-6

-4

-2

Arit.Sred

Arit.Sred+SD

Arit.Sred+1,96*SD

d1_L_podlaktica

d2_L_podlaktica

d3_L_podlaktica

-7

-6

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

Arit.Sred

Arit.Sred+SD

Arit.Sred+1,96*SD

d1_L_potkol jenica

d2_L_potkol jenica

d3_L_potkol jenica

-10

-8

-6

-4

-2

Graph 2: Differences in descriptive parameters for variables

height, left forearm length and left lower leg length.

The correlation matrix between classically and

digitally measured variables (Table 4) reveals

statistically significant correlation coefficients. It is

noticeable that the correlations in variables of height

and of left forearm length decrease proportionally

with distance, while in the variable left lower leg

length increase proportionally with higher distances.

Although relatively high, coefficient values of

correlations between classically and digitally

measured variables are not sufficient for this type of

measuring instrument.

Table 4: Correlations between classically and digitally

measured body height, left forearm length and left lower leg

length.

A Height

0,944

0,940

0,935

A_L_ forearm

0,776

0,745

0,614

A_L_ lower leg

0,616

0,646

0,664

(A_height, A_L_ forearm & A_L_ lower leg -

clasically measured body height, left forearm length

and left lower leg length, D1 - digitally measured at

200 cm distance, D2 - digitally measured at 230 cm

distance, D3 - digitally measured height at 260 cm

distance.)

Development of Computer System for Digital Measurement of Human Body: Initial Findings

151

4 CONCLUSIONS

With regard to study aims, in these initial findings we

conclude:

a) Digital measurements with Kinect are not

appropriate for clinical trials demanding

high precision. There is no statistical

evidence that could differentiate distances of

examinee from Kinect sensor in order to

define optimal distance (as long as subject

stands within Kinect’s range)

b) Recommended number of measurements

with Kinect is 6,

c) Reliability of Kinect is excellent for height

and acceptable for left forearm length and

left lower leg length, and

d) Small errors occur due to clothing, possibly

due to illumination, and sensor height and

distance, which is in line with previous

research (e.g. Espitia et al., 2015)

For improving digital measurement of human

body it is advisable to:

1. Determine correction factors for further

reduction of measurement error,

2. Determine metric characteristics for Kinect

using other anthropometric measurements,

3. Standardize protocols for Kinect

measurements with regard to specific

environment conditions (e.g. indoor vs

outdoor), and

4. Include gender differentiators within a larger

sample in order to generalize phenomena

with better accuracy.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Research was conducted by joint Research Group of

Laboratory for Sport Medicine & Exercise -

Kinantropometry and Biomechanics Laboratory of

the Institute of Kinesiology, Faculty of Kinesiology,

as a part of joint IRCRO project “Development of a

Computer System for Digital Measurements of the

Human Body”, between the Faculty of Kinesiology

and companies Live Good j.d.o.o. and CITUS d.o.o.

Authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

REFERENCES

Boonbrahm, P., Sewata, L., & Boonbrahm, S. (2015).

Transforming 2D Human Data into 3D Model for

Augmented Reality Applications. Procedia Computer

Science, 75(Vare), 28–33. http://doi.org/10.1016/

j.procs.2015.12.193

Cippitelli, E., Gasparrini, S., Spinsante, S., & Gambi, E.

(2015). Kinect as a tool for gait analysis: validation of

a real-time joint extraction algorithm working in side

view. Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 15(1), 1417–1434.

http://doi.org/10.3390/s150101417

Clarkson, S., Wheat, J., Heller, B., & Choppin, S. (2016).

Assessment of a Microsoft Kinect-based 3D scanning

system for taking body segment girth measurements: a

comparison to ISAK and ISO standards. Journal of

Sports Sciences, 34(11), 1006–14. http://doi.org/

10.1080/02640414.2015.1085075

Clarkson, Sean, Wheat, Jonathan, Heller, Ben and Choppin,

Simon (2014). Assessing the suitability of the

Microsoft Kinect for calculating person specific body

segment parameters. In: 4th IEEE Workshop on

Consumer Depth Cameras for Computer Vision,

Zurich, Switzerland, 6th September 2014.

De Rosario, H., Belda-Lois, J. M., Fos, F., Medina, E.,

Poveda-Puente, R., & Kroll, M. (2014). Correction of

joint angles from kinect for balance exercising and

assessment. Journal of Applied Biomechanics, 30(2),

294–299. http://doi.org/10.1123/jab.2013-0062

Dutta, A., Chugh, S., Banerjee, A., & Dutta, A. (2014).

Point-of-care-testing of standing posture with Wii

balance board and microsoft kinect during transcranial

direct current stimulation: A feasibility study.

NeuroRehabilitation, 34(4), 789–798. http://doi.org/

10.3233/NRE-141077

Espitia- Contreras A., Sanchez-Caiman P., Uribe-Quevedo

A., (2015) Development of Kinect-base

Anthropometric Measuremnt Application. Nueva

Grenada Mil.University, Industrial Engineering

Galna, B., Jackson, D., Schofield, G., McNaney, R.,

Webster, M., Barry, G., … Rochester, L. (2014).

Retraining function in people with Parkinson’s disease

using the Microsoft kinect: Game design and pilot

testing. Journal of NeuroEngineering and

Rehabilitation, 11(1), 1–12. http://doi.org/10.1186/

1743-0003-11-60

Gao, Z., Yu, Y., Zhou, Y., & Du, S. (2015). Leveraging two

kinect sensors for accurate full-body motion capture.

Sensors (Switzerland), 15(9), 24297–24317. http://

doi.org/10.3390/s150924297

Gasparrini, S., Cippitelli, E., Spinsante, S., & Gambi, E.

(2014). A depth-based fall detection system using a

Kinect® sensor. Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 14(2),

2756–75. http://doi.org/10.3390/s140202756

Lim, D., Kim, C., Jung, H., Jung, D., & Chun, K. (2015).

Use of the microsoft kinect system to characterize

balance ability during balance training. Clinical

Interventions in Aging, 10, 1077–1083. http://doi.org/

10.2147/CIA.S85299

Lun, R., & Zhao, W. (2015). A Survey of Applications and

Human Motion Recognition with Microsoft Kinect.

International Journal of Pattern Recognition and

Artificial Intelligence (Vol. 29). http://doi.org/10.1142/

S0218001415550083

icSPORTS 2016 - 4th International Congress on Sport Sciences Research and Technology Support

152

Mentiplay, B. F., Clark, R. A., Mullins, A., Bryant, A. L.,

Bartold, S., & Paterson, K. (2013). Reliability and

validity of the Microsoft Kinect for evaluating static

foot posture. Journal of Foot and Ankle Research, 6(1),

14. http://doi.org/10.1186/1757-1146-6-14

Mišigoj-Duraković, M.: Kinantropologija: biološki aspekti

tjelesnog vježbanja. Kineziološki fakultet Sveučilišta u

Zagrebu. Zagreb.

Mobini, A., Behzadipour, S., & Saadat, M. (2015). Test-

retest reliability of Kinect’s measurements for the

evaluation of upper body recovery of stroke patients.

Biomedical Engineering Online, 1–13.http://doi.org/

10.1186/s12938-015-0070-0

Motiian, S., Pergami, P., Guffey, K., Mancinelli, C. A., &

Doretto, G. (2015). Automated extraction and

validation of children’s gait parameters with the Kinect.

Biomedical Engineering Online, 14(112), 1–36. http://

doi.org/10.1186/s12938-015-0102-9

Oh, B.-L., Kim, J., Kim, J., Hwang, J.-M., & Lee, J. (2014).

Validity and reliability of head posture measurement

using Microsoft Kinect. The British Journal of

Ophthalmology, 1–5. http://doi.org/10.1136/

bjophthalmol-2014-305095

Pfister, A., West, A. M., Bronner, S., & Noah, J. A. (2014).

Comparative abilities of Microsoft Kinect and Vicon

3D motion capture for gait analysis. Journal of Medical

Engineering & Technology, 1902(5), 1–7. http://

doi.org/10.3109/03091902.2014.909540

Procházka, A., Vyšata, O., Vališ, M., Ťupa, O., Schätz, M.,

& Mařík, V. (2015). Use of the image and depth sensors

of the Microsoft Kinect for the detection of gait

disorders. Neural Computing and Applications, 26(7),

1621–1629. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-015-1827-x

Saenz-de-Urturi, Z., & Garcia-Zapirain Soto, B. (2016).

Kinect-Based Virtual Game for the Elderly that Detects

Incorrect Body Postures in Real Time. Sensors, 16(5),

704. http://doi.org/10.3390/s16050704

Samejima, I., Maki, K., Kagami, S., Kouchi, M., &

Mizoguchi, H. (2012). A body dimensions estimation

method of subject from a few measurement items using

KINECT. Conference Proceedings - IEEE International

Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 3384–

3389. http://doi.org/10.1109/ICSMC.2012.6378315

Sevick, M., Eklund, E., Mensch, A., Foreman, M.,

Standeven, J., & Engsberg, J. (2016). Using Free

Internet Videogames in Upper Extremity Motor

Training for Children with Cerebral Palsy. Behavioral

Sciences, 6(2), 10. http://doi.org/10.3390/bs6020010

Shapi’i, A., Bahari, N. N., Arshad, H., Zin, N. A. M., &

Mahayuddin, Z. R. (2015). Rehabilitation exercise

game model for post-stroke using Microsoft Kinect

camera. Biomedical Engineering (ICoBE), 2015 2nd

International Conference on, (March), 1–6. http://

doi.org/10.1109/ICoBE.2015.7235882

Springer, S., & Seligmann, G. Y. (2016). Validity of the

kinect for gait assessment: A focused review. Sensors

(Switzerland), 16(2), 1–13. http://doi.org/10.3390/

s16020194

Taha, Z., Hassan, M. S. S., Yap, H. J., & Yeo, W. K. (2016).

Preliminary Investigation of an Innovative Digital

Motion Analysis Device for Badminton Athlete

Performance Evaluation. Procedia Engineering, 147,

461–465. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2016.06.341

Xu, H., Yu, Y., Zhou, Y., Li, Y., & Du, S. (2013).

Measuring accurate body parameters of dressed

humans with large-scale motion using a Kinect sensor.

Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 13(9), 11362–11384.

http://doi.org/10.3390/s130911362

Zhang, Y., Zheng, J., & Magnenat-Thalmann, N. (2015).

Example-guided anthropometric human body

modeling. Visual Computer, 31(12),1615–1631. http://

doi.org/10.1007/s00371-014-1043-1

Development of Computer System for Digital Measurement of Human Body: Initial Findings

153