Affiliations: [a] Department of Production and Systems, Universityof Minho, Guimarães, Portugal
| [b] Department ofTextile Engineering, University of Minho, Guimarães, Portugal
| [c] Department of Fiber Science and Apparel Design, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA
| [d] Department of Textiles and Apparel, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA
| [e] Escuela de Kinesiología, Facultad de Medicina, Universidad de Valparaíso, Valparaíso, Chile
Correspondence:
[*]
Address for correspondence: Sara Bragança, Department of Production and Systems, University of Minho, Guimarães, Portugal. Tel.: +351 964228094; E-mail: saraabraganca@gmail.com.
Abstract: BACKGROUND: Understanding the reliability and precision of the data obtained using three-dimensional body scanners is very important if it is intended to replace the traditional data collection methods. If the collection of anthropometric data with three-dimensional body scanners is a fast and reliable process that produces precise data at a low price, it could be used for numerous applications worldwide. Many studies have addressed data collected by white light and laser based scanners. OBJECTIVE: This study provides a comparative analysis between the anthropometric data collected using a Kinect body imaging system with the data collected using traditional manual methods. Moreover, a comparison is also made between the results obtained in this study and the results of previous studies of different types of body scanners. METHODS: The Mean Absolute Difference was calculated and all the values were compared to the maximum allowable error defined in ISO 20685. Additionally, an analysis of the significant differences between the two acquisition methods was also applied to a physical mannequin, to understand how the body movement and body stance variation in human participants impacts the results obtained. RESULTS: There are few body measurements that are close to this restricted allowable error. The results were better when the mannequin was measured. Although they were still above the ISO 20685 limit, they were much closer than the results obtained for human participants. CONCLUSION: The main cause of the differences between the two methods is the time required for the 3D system to acquire the data. The involuntary body sway of human participants is more difficult to control when the time span is too long.
Keywords: Traditional anthropometry, 3D body scanners, Kinect, reliability, precision
