↓ Skip to main content

Evaluation of Kinect 3D Sensor for Healthcare Imaging

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Medical and Biological Engineering, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#18 of 108)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
58 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
165 Mendeley
Title
Evaluation of Kinect 3D Sensor for Healthcare Imaging
Published in
Journal of Medical and Biological Engineering, December 2016
DOI 10.1007/s40846-016-0184-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stefanie T. L. Pöhlmann, Elaine F. Harkness, Christopher J. Taylor, Susan M. Astley

Abstract

Microsoft Kinect is a three-dimensional (3D) sensor originally designed for gaming that has received growing interest as a cost-effective and safe device for healthcare imaging. Recent applications of Kinect in health monitoring, screening, rehabilitation, assistance systems, and intervention support are reviewed here. The suitability of available technologies for healthcare imaging applications is assessed. The performance of Kinect I, based on structured light technology, is compared with that of the more recent Kinect II, which uses time-of-flight measurement, under conditions relevant to healthcare applications. The accuracy, precision, and resolution of 3D images generated with Kinect I and Kinect II are evaluated using flat cardboard models representing different skin colors (pale, medium, and dark) at distances ranging from 0.5 to 1.2 m and measurement angles of up to 75°. Both sensors demonstrated high accuracy (majority of measurements <2 mm) and precision (mean point to plane error <2 mm) at an average resolution of at least 390 points per cm(2). Kinect I is capable of imaging at shorter measurement distances, but Kinect II enables structures angled at over 60° to be evaluated. Kinect II showed significantly higher precision and Kinect I showed significantly higher resolution (both p < 0.001). The choice of object color can influence measurement range and precision. Although Kinect is not a medical imaging device, both sensor generations show performance adequate for a range of healthcare imaging applications. Kinect I is more appropriate for short-range imaging and Kinect II is more appropriate for imaging highly curved surfaces such as the face or breast.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 165 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 165 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 27 16%
Researcher 20 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 12%
Student > Bachelor 17 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 16 10%
Other 27 16%
Unknown 38 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 39 24%
Computer Science 28 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 17 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 2%
Other 19 12%
Unknown 50 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 January 2020.
All research outputs
#6,352,032
of 24,174,783 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Medical and Biological Engineering
#18
of 108 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#111,333
of 427,383 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Medical and Biological Engineering
#2
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,174,783 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 108 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 427,383 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 7 of them.