2D Pose Estimation vs. Inertial Measurement Unit-Based Motion Capture in Ergonomics: Assessing Postural Risk in...

The dental profession has a high prevalence of musculoskeletal disorders because daily working life is characterized by many monotonous and one-sided physical exertions. Inertial measurement unit (IMU)-based motion capture (MoCap) is increasingly utilized for assessing workplace postural risk. However, practical alternatives are needed because it is time-consuming and relatively cost intensive for ergonomists. This study compared two measurement technologies: IMU-based MoCap and a time-effective alternative, two-dimensional (2D) pose estimation. Forty-five dental assistant students (all female) were included (age: 19.56 ± 5.91 years; height: 165.00 ± 6.35 cm; weight: 63.41 ± 13.87 kg; BMI: 21.56 ± 4.63 kg/m²). A 30 s IMU-based MoCap and image-based pose estimation in the sagittal and frontal planes were performed during a representative experimental task. Data were analyzed using Cohen's weighted kappa and Bland-Altman plots. There was a significant moderate agreement between the Rapid Upper Limb Assessment (RULA) score from IMU-based MoCap and pose estimation (κ = 0.461, pB = 0.006), but no significant poor agreement (p > 0.05) regarding the body regions of the upper arm, lower arm, wrist, neck, and trunk. These findings indicate that IMU-based MoCap and pose estimation moderately align when assessing the overall RULA score but not for specific body parts. While pose estimation might be useful for quick general posture assessment, it may not be reliable for evaluating joint-level differences, especially in body areas such as the upper extremities. Future research should focus on refining video-based pose estimation for real-time postural risk assessment in the workplace.