Estimating Ground Reaction Forces from Two-Dimensional Pose Data: A Biomechanics-Based Comparison of AlphaPose, BlazePose, and OpenPose

Sensors (Basel). 2022 Dec 21;23(1):78. doi: 10.3390/s23010078.

Abstract

The adoption of computer vision pose estimation approaches, used to identify keypoint locations which are intended to reflect the necessary anatomical landmarks relied upon by biomechanists for musculoskeletal modelling, has gained increasing traction in recent years. This uptake has been further accelerated by keypoint use as inputs into machine learning models used to estimate biomechanical parameters such as ground reaction forces (GRFs) in the absence of instrumentation required for direct measurement. This study first aimed to investigate the keypoint detection rate of three open-source pose estimation models (AlphaPose, BlazePose, and OpenPose) across varying movements, camera views, and trial lengths. Second, this study aimed to assess the suitability and interchangeability of keypoints detected by each pose estimation model when used as inputs into machine learning models for the estimation of GRFs. The keypoint detection rate of BlazePose was distinctly lower than that of AlphaPose and OpenPose. All pose estimation models achieved a high keypoint detection rate at the centre of an image frame and a lower detection rate in the true sagittal plane camera field of view, compared with slightly anteriorly or posteriorly located quasi-sagittal plane camera views. The three-dimensional ground reaction force, instantaneous loading rate, and peak force for running could be estimated using the keypoints of all three pose estimation models. However, only AlphaPose and OpenPose keypoints could be used interchangeably with a machine learning model trained to estimate GRFs based on AlphaPose keypoints resulting in a high estimation accuracy when OpenPose keypoints were used as inputs and vice versa. The findings of this study highlight the need for further evaluation of computer vision-based pose estimation models for application in biomechanical human modelling, and the limitations of machine learning-based GRF estimation models that rely on 2D keypoints. This is of particular relevance given that machine learning models informing athlete monitoring guidelines are being developed for application related to athlete well-being.

Keywords: artificial neural networks; biomechanics; machine learning; motion analysis; pose estimation.

MeSH terms

  • Biomechanical Phenomena
  • Humans
  • Machine Learning
  • Mechanical Phenomena
  • Movement*
  • Running*