Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 18, 2026
Movement Retraining using Real-time Feedback of Performance
Published on: January 17, 2013
A Systematic Review of the Accuracy, Validity, and Reliability of Markerless Versus Marker Camera-Based 3D Motion
Sofia Scataglini1, Eugenia Fontinovo1,2, Nouran Khafaga1
14D4ALL Lab, Department of Rehabilitation Sciences and Physiotherapy, Center for Health and Technology (CHaT), Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, MOVANT, University of Antwerp, 2000 Antwerpen, Belgium.
None:
Ergonomic risk assessment is crucial for preventing work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WMSDs), which often arise from repetitive tasks, prolonged sitting, and load handling, leading to absenteeism and increased healthcare costs. Biomechanical risk assessment, such as RULA/REBA, is increasingly being enhanced by camera-based motion capture systems, either marker-based (MBSs) or markerless systems (MCBSs). This systematic review compared MBSs and MCBSs regarding accuracy, validity, and reliability for industrial ergonomic risk analysis. A comprehensive search of PubMed, WoS, ScienceDirect, IEEE Xplore, and PEDro (31 May 2025) identified 898 records; after screening with PICO-based eligibility criteria, 20 quantitative studies were included. Methodological quality was assessed with the COSMIN Risk of Bias tool, synthesized using PRISMA 2020, and graded with EBRO criteria. MBSs showed the highest precision (0.5-1.5 mm error) and reliability (ICC > 0.90) but were limited by cost and laboratory constraints. MCBSs demonstrated moderate-to-high accuracy (5-20 mm error; mean joint-angle error: 2.31° ± 4.00°) and good reliability (ICC > 0.80), with greater practicality in field settings. Several studies reported strong validity for RULA/REBA prediction (accuracy up to 89%, κ = 0.71). In conclusion, MCBSs provide a feasible, scalable alternative to traditional ergonomic assessment, combining reliability with usability and supporting integration into occupational risk prevention.
