Evaluation of the Leap Motion Controller during the performance of visually-guided upper limb movements

• Published in: PloS one 2018-03, Vol.13 (3), p.e0193639-e0193639
• Main Authors: Niechwiej-Szwedo, Ewa, Gonzalez, David, Nouredanesh, Mina, Tung, James
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Accuracy; Analysis; Autism; Biology and Life Sciences; Central nervous system; Computer and Information Sciences; Data collection; Deceleration; Error analysis; Extremities (Anatomy); Kinematics; Kinesiology; Laboratories; Medicine and Health Sciences; Motion capture; Motor skills; Motor task performance; Movement (Physiology); Nervous system; Physical Sciences; Portable equipment; Reliability analysis; Tracking devices; Validity; Velocity
• ISSN: 1932-6203; 1932-6203
• DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0193639

Kinematic analysis of upper limb reaching provides insight into the central nervous system control of movements. Until recently, kinematic examination of motor control has been limited to studies conducted in traditional research laboratories because motion capture equipment used for data collection is not easily portable and expensive. A recently developed markerless system, the Leap Motion Controller (LMC), is a portable and inexpensive tracking device that allows recording of 3D hand and finger position. The main goal of this study was to assess the concurrent reliability and validity of the LMC as compared to the Optotrak, a criterion-standard motion capture system, for measures of temporal accuracy and peak velocity during the performance of upper limb, visually-guided movements. In experiment 1, 14 participants executed aiming movements to visual targets presented on a computer monitor. Bland-Altman analysis was conducted to assess the validity and limits of agreement for measures of temporal accuracy (movement time, duration of deceleration interval), peak velocity, and spatial accuracy (endpoint accuracy). In addition, a one-sample t-test was used to test the hypothesis that the error difference between measures obtained from Optotrak and LMC is zero. In experiment 2, 15 participants performed a Fitts' type aiming task in order to assess whether the LMC is capable of assessing a well-known speed-accuracy trade-off relationship. Experiment 3 assessed the temporal coordination pattern during the performance of a sequence consisting of a reaching, grasping, and placement task in 15 participants. Results from the t-test showed that the error difference in temporal measures was significantly different from zero. Based on the results from the 3 experiments, the average temporal error in movement time was 40±44 ms, and the error in peak velocity was 0.024±0.103 m/s. The limits of agreement between the LMC and Optotrak for spatial accuracy measures ranged between 2-5 cm. Although the LMC system is a low-cost, highly portable system, which could facilitate collection of kinematic data outside of the traditional laboratory settings, the temporal and spatial errors may limit the use of the device in some settings.