Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 42 references

UMotion: Uncertainty-driven Human Motion Estimation from Inertial and Ultra-wideband Units

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Six wearable sensors plus a feedback loop cut pose error by a third

desk verdict A genuine feedback-loop contribution to IMU+UWB motion capture, but the headline SOTA claim is not supported by the only real-world UWB comparison. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.09393 v1 pith:AT2I3H7M submitted 2025-05-14 cs.GR cs.AIcs.CV

Huakun Liu , Hiroki Ota , Xin Wei , Yutaro Hirao , Monica Perusquia-Hernandez , Hideaki Uchiyama , Kiyoshi Kiyokawa This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.GRcs.AIcs.CV
keywords humanmotionestimationinertialmeasurementunitsultra-widebandrangingUnscentedKalmanFilteruncertainty-drivensensorfusionsparsewearablesensorsbodyshapereal-timeposetracking
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper is trying to show that six body-worn inertial and ultra-wideband (UWB) sensors can track 3D human pose and body shape in real time if the system treats its own pose estimate as a measurement rather than as a final output. The proposed framework, UMotion, closes a feedback loop: noisy accelerations and inter-sensor distances produce a pose with learned uncertainty; that uncertainty is transformed through a human body model to predict where the sensors should be and how much to trust that prediction; and an Unscented Kalman Filter uses those pseudo-measurements to correct the raw inputs before the next pose is estimated. If the loop works as claimed, the practical payoff is that drift and pose ambiguity—the two longstanding weaknesses of sparse inertial capture—can be suppressed without cameras, anchors, or dense sensor suits. The paper reports that the approach outperforms prior methods on standard benchmarks, for example reducing mean angular error from 10.45 degrees to 7.06 degrees on TotalCapture and mean joint position error from 5.05 cm to 3.38 cm on DIP-IMU.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Unscented Kalman Filter (UKF) state estimator, together with the unscented transform that carries pose uncertainty through the SMPL body model—a skinned linear body model that maps pose and shape parameters to a mesh and joint positions. The UKF tracks relative positions, relative velocities, and acceleration biases of the six wearable nodes; raw IMU accelerations drive state propagation, UWB distances and their time derivatives enter as direct measurements, and the new part is the third measurement source. The pose distribution $N(\hat{\theta}, \hat{\Sigma})$ is converted by $\sigma$ points through the body model into a distribution over sensor-relative positions, whose mean becomes a pseudo-observation and whose covariance becomes the observation noise $R_3$ in the filter's measurement update. This is the mechanism that makes the feedback loop work: the filter's trust in the pose estimate determines how strongly corrected sensor readings are pulled toward what the body model predicts.

What would settle it

A calibration test would settle the claim: on a held-out split of TotalCapture, compare the pose-derived relative-position errors against the covariance $R_3$; if far fewer than the expected fraction of errors fall inside the 3-sigma ellipsoid, or if replacing the learned $R_3$ with a tuned constant covariance leaves pose accuracy unchanged, then the uncertainty signal, not the filtering itself, is not the source of the improvement.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a tightly coupled Unscented Kalman Filter can stabilize both IMU drift and UWB occlusion by aligning raw sensor measurements with uncertain human-motion constraints computed from the current pose estimate. The state carries relative positions, relative velocities, and acceleration biases between the six sensor nodes. The pose estimator returns rotations $\hat{\theta}$ and a predicted covariance $\hat{\Sigma}$; an unscented transform pushes this distribution through the SMPL body model to produce a distribution of inter-sensor relative positions. That distribution supplies both a pseudo-observation $\hat{p}_{xy}$ and an observation covariance $R_3 = \hat{\Sigma}^2_{\hat{p}}$ for the filter update, and the corrected accelerations and distances are fed back into the pose estimator. The paper argues that this closed loop is what lets a sparse six-sensor setup resolve pose ambiguities, adapt to individual body shape, and beat prior state of the art in pose accuracy.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the predicted pose covariance, after a heuristic 10x scale and a pass through the body model, is trustworthy enough to set the filter's observation noise—if it is overconfident or biased, the feedback loop would amplify pose errors rather than correct them.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • On the paper's experiments, fusing IMU, UWB, and pose feedback reduces mean inter-sensor distance error on TotalCapture from 9.20 cm to 2.42 cm, showing the filter is not just smoothing but actively correcting UWB measurements.
  • The reported pose accuracy beats prior sparse-sensor methods: 7.06 degrees mean angular error versus 10.45 degrees for the previous best on TotalCapture, and 3.38 cm position error versus 5.05 cm on DIP-IMU.
  • The full pipeline runs in real time (60 Hz without line-of-sight inference, 30 Hz with it) using only six body-worn units, so no external cameras or fixed anchors are needed.
  • Estimating body shape from height, weight, and seven inter-sensor distances brings reconstructed mesh error close to the level obtained with ground-truth shape, which means the system adapts to different bodies rather than assuming a template.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Inference: if the feedback gain comes from calibrated uncertainty rather than the heuristic 10x scale on $R_3$, then recalibrating the predicted covariance—for example by quantile matching on a validation split—should further improve accuracy; the paper's own supplementary analysis shows the predicted uncertainty underestimates large errors, so this is a concrete extension.
  • Inference: the same pattern—transform a latent-state distribution through a differentiable generative model and feed the resulting pseudo-observations and covariance back into a filter—could apply to other under-constrained tracking problems, such as hand tracking from sparse magnetic or optical markers.
  • Inference: the ablation showing that introducing intermediate joint or sensor-position layers hurts accuracy suggests that, with distance feedback in place, simpler direct regression architectures may be preferable; this challenges the common design of inserting explicit intermediate representations in sensor-based pose networks.
  • Inference: a testable safeguard would be to detect out-of-distribution or high-error poses and temporarily weaken the pose-feedback gain; if the loop amplifies errors exactly when $\hat{\Sigma}$ is overconfident, such adaptive gating would be necessary for deployment on varied real bodies.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes UMotion, a real-time online framework for 3D human shape and pose estimation from six body-worn IMU-UWB sensor nodes. The method comprises a shape estimator that regresses SMPL shape parameters from anthropometrics and selected inter-sensor distances, a unidirectional LSTM pose estimator that outputs pose parameters plus corresponding uncertainties, and a UKF state estimator that fuses (i) IMU accelerations as control inputs, (ii) UWB distance measurements, and (iii) pose-derived relative positions with their uncertainties in a closed feedback loop. The state estimator outputs filtered accelerations and distances that are fed back to the pose estimator. Experiments are reported on TotalCapture, DIP-IMU, and the UIP dataset, with comparisons against IMU-only baselines (DIP, TransPose, TIP, PIP, PNP) and distance-augmented baselines (TIP-D, PIP-D, UIP). The paper claims state-of-the-art pose accuracy and demonstrates the fusion design through module-level ablations.

Significance. If the proposed closed-loop fusion is sound, UMotion would be a meaningful step toward mitigating drift and pose ambiguity in sparse inertial motion capture by exploiting UWB distances and body-shape constraints. The manuscript has notable strengths: the code is released, a real IMU-UWB prototype was built, and the ablations (Figs. 4, 5, 12; Table 4) support the usefulness of the UKF fusion over unfiltered inputs. However, the central SOTA claim is only partially supported as stated: the head-to-head tables against IMU-only methods give UMotion an extra distance modality, the two main benchmark comparisons use noise-free synthetic distances that are not UWB measurements, and on the sole real UWB dataset the method wins one metric while losing another. The closed-loop uncertainty calibration is also heuristic, relying on a single scaling factor admitted to compensate for overconfidence. The contribution is defensible and worth further development, but the experimental evidence does not yet establish the claimed advantage.

major comments (5)
  1. [§4.3, Table 1] The comparison against IMU-only methods (DIP, TransPose, TIP, PIP, PNP) is not a like-for-like evaluation: UMotion additionally receives inter-sensor distance inputs, while the baselines do not. The reported improvements in angular error, position error, and mesh error therefore conflate the benefit of the extra modality with the benefit of the proposed fusion architecture. Please either restrict the headline comparison to distance-augmented baselines (as in Table 2) or provide a UMotion ablation that uses only IMU inputs to isolate the contribution of the fusion framework.
  2. [§4.3, Table 2] The main SOTA claim is not supported uniformly by the data. On TotalCapture and DIP-IMU the inter-sensor distances are 'ideal synthetic inter-sensor distances without noise' (following UIP's protocol), which are not UWB measurements. On the only real UWB dataset (UIP), UMotion improves positional error (10.33 vs. 10.65 cm) but worsens SIP error (25.69 vs. 24.12 deg) relative to UIP. Thus the abstract and §5 sentence 'outperforms existing SOTA methods in pose accuracy' is contradicted by the SIP metric on the real dataset; the claim must be conditioned on metric and noise regime, or a principled aggregation of metrics must be provided.
  3. [§4.3, Table 2 (UIP dataset)] No error bars, confidence intervals, or repeated trials are reported anywhere in the experiments. The claimed real-UWB positional gain over UIP is 0.32 cm, which is well within typical run-to-run variability for such motion-capture comparisons. Without repeated evaluations or statistical significance tests, the 0.32 cm difference cannot be interpreted as evidence of SOTA-level improvement on real UWB data.
  4. [§3.4.3, Eq. (18); §4.2; Supplementary E] The closed-loop feedback is load-bearing and is only heuristically calibrated. The measurement vector in Eq. (18) includes pose-derived relative positions p̂_xy, which come from the same pose estimator whose inputs (filtered accelerations and distances) are outputs of the UKF. This creates a feedback loop whose stability depends on the predicted covariance R3 being a reasonably calibrated observation noise. The paper states in §4.2 that R3 is scaled by a factor of 10 to compensate for overconfident predictions, and Supplementary E reports that the predicted uncertainty underestimates larger errors. This means the covariance is not a principled noise model, and there is no analysis or held-out validation showing that the loop reduces rather than amplifies error for realistic out-of-distribution motions. The authors should provide an explicit calibration study or an alternative validation that the feedback loop does not reinforce pose error.
  5. [§3.4.2, §4.2, Eq. (12), Eq. (26)] The state estimator is not fully reproducible from the manuscript because several noise parameters are left unspecified. The process noise covariance Q in Eq. (12) is said to be derived from IMU characteristics, the distance measurement noise R1 follows the LOS model of Eq. (26), and the parameters σmin, σmax, τlower, τupper, and σkinematics are described as 'may vary depending on the specific sensors used.' Reporting actual numeric values (even for the prototype hardware) is necessary for other researchers to reimplement the method and to assess the sensitivity of the results to these choices.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and §5] The phrase 'improvement over state of the art in pose accuracy' is too strong in light of the mixed real-UWB results; consider phrasing such as 'improvements in positional accuracy on benchmark datasets, with mixed results on SIP error for real UWB data.'
  2. [§3.3.2, Eq. (6)] The GNLL loss in Eq. (6) uses max(Σ^2, εmin) where Σ is a vector; please clarify that the operations are element-wise and that εmin is scalar, to avoid ambiguity.
  3. [§3.3.1, Fig. 3] The text refers to 'experimentally selected inter-distances' and Fig. 3 provides input_indices, but the mapping from these indices to the named body-pair distances (wrist-knee, wrist-head, etc.) is only in the figure caption. Please state the seven selected pairs explicitly in the text.
  4. [Table 2] There is a typo in the table title: 'TotapCapture' should be 'TotalCapture'.
  5. [§4.2 and Supplementary F] Supplementary F states that the pose estimator is trained without integrating the state estimator and that synthesized IMU data remains noise-free. This should be stated in the main text as well, because it directly affects the interpretation of how the feedback loop behaves during training versus inference.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: UMotion's closed-loop feedback is an empirically evaluated state-estimation design, not a derivation that reduces to its own inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that the UKF feedback loop (Eqs. 9-18) improves pose accuracy, evaluated on held-out TotalCapture, DIP-IMU, and UIP benchmarks. The pose estimator (Eq. 4) is a learned mapping from filtered sensor inputs to pose parameters; the pose-derived relative positions (Eqs. 15-17) are used as one measurement source in the UKF, and the refined accelerations and distances feed back into the pose estimator. This is a closed-loop observer, not a self-definitional construction: the pose output is not defined as the UKF output, and the final accuracy numbers are compared against external ground truth rather than being enforced by the equations. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction: the learned uncertainty \hat{\Sigma} is calibrated against pose errors, and Section 4.2 explicitly acknowledges overconfidence by scaling R3 by 10, which is a stated heuristic rather than a hidden fit. No load-bearing self-citation appears: the references to prior work on inertial posers (DIP, TransPose, PIP, PNP, UIP) are external baselines, and no uniqueness theorem or prior result by these authors is invoked to force the design. The use of ideal synthetic distances for TotalCapture and DIP-IMU, and the mixed SIP/position results on the UIP dataset, are legitimate evidence-quality concerns about whether the SOTA claim is fully established, but they are not circularity: the evaluation does not assume what it is trying to prove. The feedback loop could in principle reinforce errors, and the paper admits the learned uncertainty is imperfect, but that is a robustness limitation, not a reduction of the result to its inputs. Overall the derivation chain is self-contained and externally validated, so no circular step is identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced; the method combines existing SMPL, IMU, UWB, and Kalman filtering components. The main loaded assumptions are the transferability of synthetic training data, the Gaussian treatment of pose uncertainty, and the closed-loop trust in the pose estimator's own uncertainty as UKF observation covariance.

free parameters (5)
  • R3 scale factor = 10
    Section 4.2 and Supplementary F: a factor of 10 is applied to pose-derived covariance R3 to compensate for overconfident uncertainty predictions; chosen experimentally.
  • UKF sigma-point parameters = alpha=0.2, beta=1.0, kappa=-105
    Section 4.2: set experimentally to control sigma point distribution; standard UKF hyperparameters but tuned by hand.
  • Pose unscented transform parameters = alpha_NN=0.09, beta_NN=1.0, kappa_NN=-93
    Section 4.2: chosen experimentally for transforming the pose distribution through SMPL.
  • LOS distance error model parameters = not fully specified (tau_upper, tau_lower, sigma_min, sigma_max, sigma_kinematics)
    Supplementary D Eq. 26: thresholds and noise standard deviations for distance measurements under line-of-sight; values are not reported and are said to vary with hardware.
  • Selected inter-distances for shape estimator = 7 of 15 distances, indices [0,6,7,8,9,13,14]
    Section 3.3.1 and Fig. 3: 'experimentally selected' repeatable distances; the choice affects shape estimation and is not derived from first principles.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption SMPL (Eq. 1) captures human body shape and pose sufficiently for the estimation task.
    Section 3.1: all shape and pose targets are SMPL parameters, so the whole pipeline depends on SMPL's representational power.
  • domain assumption Measured acceleration equals true acceleration plus a random-walk bias plus white noise (Eq. 2).
    Section 3.1 and state propagation Eqs. 9-11: this standard model is used without hardware-specific validation.
  • domain assumption UWB range measurements correspond to Euclidean distances between sensor nodes, with noise depending on line-of-sight proportion (Eq. 26).
    Section 3.4.3 and Supplementary D: occlusion and reflection effects are modeled only through the LOS proportion.
  • domain assumption Synthesized IMU and UWB data from AMASS are representative enough to train the pose estimator for real sensors.
    Section 4.1: prior works use the same assumption, but it is load-bearing for the real-hardware results.
  • domain assumption Pose uncertainty is Gaussian and can be propagated through SMPL via sigma points to a Gaussian distribution over sensor relative positions.
    Section 3.4.3 Eqs. 15-17: the UKF requires this, and Supplementary E shows it is only approximately true.
  • domain assumption Line-of-sight simulation using ray-mesh intersections predicts real UWB occlusion patterns.
    Supplementary D: this simulation is used to set distance measurement noise but is never validated against the real prototype's occlusion statistics.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of UMotion: Uncertainty-driven Human Motion Estimation from Inertial and Ultra-wideband Units." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AT2I3H7M

@misc{pith2026250509393,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: UMotion: Uncertainty-driven Human Motion Estimation from Inertial and Ultra-wideband Units},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AT2I3H7M}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.09393}
}
read the original abstract

Sparse wearable inertial measurement units (IMUs) have gained popularity for estimating 3D human motion. However, challenges such as pose ambiguity, data drift, and limited adaptability to diverse bodies persist. To address these issues, we propose UMotion, an uncertainty-driven, online fusing-all state estimation framework for 3D human shape and pose estimation, supported by six integrated, body-worn ultra-wideband (UWB) distance sensors with IMUs. UWB sensors measure inter-node distances to infer spatial relationships, aiding in resolving pose ambiguities and body shape variations when combined with anthropometric data. Unfortunately, IMUs are prone to drift, and UWB sensors are affected by body occlusions. Consequently, we develop a tightly coupled Unscented Kalman Filter (UKF) framework that fuses uncertainties from sensor data and estimated human motion based on individual body shape. The UKF iteratively refines IMU and UWB measurements by aligning them with uncertain human motion constraints in real-time, producing optimal estimates for each. Experiments on both synthetic and real-world datasets demonstrate the effectiveness of UMotion in stabilizing sensor data and the improvement over state of the art in pose accuracy.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.09393 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. UMotion integrates IMU-UWB data inputs and pose out [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of UMotion, consisting of three main modules: the shape estimator, pose estimator, and state estimator. The shape [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Visualization of selected inter-sensor distances used in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Cumulative distribution of distance error (left) and acceleration error reduction over time (right) for various fusion settings. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Joint positional error for different fusion settings. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Overview of coordinate frames. A. IMU-UWB Prototype We developed a prototype integrating the off-the-shelf CEVA BNO086 9-axis IMU and Qorvo DW3000 UWB sensors on a customized board. An ESP32 microcontroller handles on-board data preprocessing and wireless trans￾mission…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Stacked density plot showing the proportion relative to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Histogram of axis-wise relative position differences, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Cumulative distribution of distance error (left), predicted relative position standard deviation (middle), and joint positional error [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_12.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Ultra inertial poser: Scalable motion capture and track- ing from sparse inertial sensors and ultra-wideband ranging

    Rayan Armani, Changlin Qian, Jiaxi Jiang, and Christian Holz. Ultra inertial poser: Scalable motion capture and track- ing from sparse inertial sensors and ultra-wideband ranging. In ACM SIGGRAPH 2024 Conference Papers , pages 1–11,

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Accurate 3d body shape regression using metric and semantic attributes

    Vasileios Choutas, Lea M ¨uller, Chun-Hao P Huang, Siyu Tang, Dimitrios Tzionas, and Michael J Black. Accurate 3d body shape regression using metric and semantic attributes. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 2718–2728, 2022. 3, 6

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    Hmd-poser: On-device real-time human motion tracking from scalable sparse observations

    Peng Dai, Yang Zhang, Tao Liu, Zhen Fan, Tianyuan Du, Zhuo Su, Xiaozheng Zheng, and Zeming Li. Hmd-poser: On-device real-time human motion tracking from scalable sparse observations. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Con- ference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 874–884, 2024. 1

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Smart- poser: Arm pose estimation with a smartphone and smart- watch using uwb and imu data

    Nathan DeVrio, Vimal Mollyn, and Chris Harrison. Smart- poser: Arm pose estimation with a smartphone and smart- watch using uwb and imu data. In Proceedings of the 36th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, pages 1–11, 2023. 2

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Autogluon-tabular: Robust and accurate automl for struc- tured data

    Nick Erickson, Jonas Mueller, Alexander Shirkov, Hang Zhang, Pedro Larroy, Mu Li, and Alexander Smola. Autogluon-tabular: Robust and accurate automl for struc- tured data. arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.06505, 2020. 3

    arXiv 2003

  6. [6]

    Long short-term memory

    S Hochreiter. Long short-term memory. Neural Computation MIT-Press, 1997. 4

    work page 1997

  7. [7]

    Deep iner- tial poser: Learning to reconstruct human pose from sparse inertial measurements in real time

    Yinghao Huang, Manuel Kaufmann, Emre Aksan, Michael J Black, Otmar Hilliges, and Gerard Pons-Moll. Deep iner- tial poser: Learning to reconstruct human pose from sparse inertial measurements in real time. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG), 37(6):1–15, 2018. 1, 2, 6, 7

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    Avatarposer: Ar- ticulated full-body pose tracking from sparse motion sens- ing

    Jiaxi Jiang, Paul Streli, Huajian Qiu, Andreas Fender, Larissa Laich, Patrick Snape, and Christian Holz. Avatarposer: Ar- ticulated full-body pose tracking from sparse motion sens- ing. In European conference on computer vision, pages 443–

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    Egoposer: Robust real-time ego-body pose estimation in large scenes

    Jiaxi Jiang, Paul Streli, Manuel Meier, and Christian Holz. Egoposer: Robust real-time ego-body pose estimation in large scenes. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.06493, 2023. 2

    2023 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Transformer inertial poser: Real-time human motion reconstruction from sparse imus with simultaneous terrain generation

    Yifeng Jiang, Yuting Ye, Deepak Gopinath, Jungdam Won, Alexander W Winkler, and C Karen Liu. Transformer inertial poser: Real-time human motion reconstruction from sparse imus with simultaneous terrain generation. In SIGGRAPH Asia 2022 Conference Papers, pages 1–9, 2022. 1, 2, 6, 7

    2022

  3. [11]

    A new approach for filtering nonlinear systems

    Simon J Julier, Jeffrey K Uhlmann, and Hugh F Durrant- Whyte. A new approach for filtering nonlinear systems. In Proceedings of 1995 American Control Conference-ACC’95, pages 1628–1632. IEEE, 1995. 5

    1995

  4. [12]

    Em-pose: 3d human pose estimation from sparse electromagnetic trackers

    Manuel Kaufmann, Yi Zhao, Chengcheng Tang, Lingling Tao, Christopher Twigg, Jie Song, Robert Wang, and Otmar Hilliges. Em-pose: 3d human pose estimation from sparse electromagnetic trackers. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision , pages 115...

    2021

  5. [13]

    Mocap everyone everywhere: Lightweight motion capture with smartwatches and a head- mounted camera

    Jiye Lee and Hanbyul Joo. Mocap everyone everywhere: Lightweight motion capture with smartwatches and a head- mounted camera. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Con- ference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 1091–1100, 2024. 1, 2

    2024

  6. [14]

    Questenvsim: Environment-aware simulated motion tracking from sparse sensors

    Sunmin Lee, Sebastian Starke, Yuting Ye, Jungdam Won, and Alexander Winkler. Questenvsim: Environment-aware simulated motion tracking from sparse sensors. InACM SIG- GRAPH 2023 Conference Proceedings, pages 1–9, 2023. 1

    2023

  7. [15]

    Hybridcap: Inertia-aid monocular capture of challenging human motions

    Han Liang, Yannan He, Chengfeng Zhao, Mutian Li, Jingya Wang, Jingyi Yu, and Lan Xu. Hybridcap: Inertia-aid monocular capture of challenging human motions. In Pro- ceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , pages 1539–1548, 2023. 2

    2023

  8. [16]

    Realtime human motion control with a small number of inertial sensors

    Huajun Liu, Xiaolin Wei, Jinxiang Chai, Inwoo Ha, and Tae- hyun Rhee. Realtime human motion control with a small number of inertial sensors. In Symposium on interactive 3D graphics and games, pages 133–140, 2011. 2

    2011

  9. [17]

    Smpl: A skinned multi- person linear model

    Matthew Loper, Naureen Mahmood, Javier Romero, Gerard Pons-Moll, and Michael J Black. Smpl: A skinned multi- person linear model. In Seminal Graphics Papers: Pushing the Boundaries, Volume 2, pages 851–866. 2023. 2

    2023

  10. [18]

    Amass: Archive of motion capture as surface shapes

    Naureen Mahmood, Nima Ghorbani, Nikolaus F Troje, Ger- ard Pons-Moll, and Michael J Black. Amass: Archive of motion capture as surface shapes. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pages 5442–5451, 2019. 2, 6

    2019

  11. [19]

    Asymmetric double- sided two-way ranging in an ultrawideband communication system, 2019

    Michael McLaughlin and Billy Verso. Asymmetric double- sided two-way ranging in an ultrawideband communication system, 2019. US Patent 10,488,509. 2

    2019

  12. [20]

    Imuposer: Full-body pose estimation using imus in phones, watches, and earbuds

    Vimal Mollyn, Riku Arakawa, Mayank Goel, Chris Harri- son, and Karan Ahuja. Imuposer: Full-body pose estimation using imus in phones, watches, and earbuds. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Comput- ing Systems, pages 1–12, 2023. 1

    2023

  13. [21]

    UWB: theory and applications

    Ian Oppermann, Matti H ¨am¨al¨ainen, and Jari Iinatti. UWB: theory and applications. John Wiley & Sons, 2004. 3

    2004

  14. [22]

    Fusing monoc- ular images and sparse imu signals for real-time human mo- tion capture

    Shaohua Pan, Qi Ma, Xinyu Yi, Weifeng Hu, Xiong Wang, Xingkang Zhou, Jijunnan Li, and Feng Xu. Fusing monoc- ular images and sparse imu signals for real-time human mo- tion capture. In SIGGRAPH Asia 2023 Conference Papers, pages 1–11, 2023. 2

    2023

  15. [23]

    Multisensor-fusion for 3d full-body human motion capture

    Gerard Pons-Moll, Andreas Baak, Thomas Helten, Meinard M ¨uller, Hans-Peter Seidel, and Bodo Rosen- hahn. Multisensor-fusion for 3d full-body human motion capture. In 2010 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 663–670. IEEE, 2010

    2010

  16. [24]

    Sparseposer: Real-time full- body motion reconstruction from sparse data

    Jose Luis Ponton, Haoran Yun, Andreas Aristidou, Carlos Andujar, and Nuria Pelechano. Sparseposer: Real-time full- body motion reconstruction from sparse data. ACM Trans- actions on Graphics, 43(1):1–14, 2023. 2

    2023

  17. [25]

    The virtual caliper: rapid creation of metrically accurate avatars from 3d measurements

    Sergi Pujades, Betty Mohler, Anne Thaler, Joachim Tesch, Naureen Mahmood, Nikolas Hesse, Heinrich H B ¨ulthoff, and Michael J Black. The virtual caliper: rapid creation of metrically accurate avatars from 3d measurements. IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphic...

    2019

  18. [26]

    Lidar-aid inertial poser: Large-scale human motion capture by sparse inertial and lidar sensors

    Yiming Ren, Chengfeng Zhao, Yannan He, Peishan Cong, Han Liang, Jingyi Yu, Lan Xu, and Yuexin Ma. Lidar-aid inertial poser: Large-scale human motion capture by sparse inertial and lidar sensors. IEEE Transactions on Visualiza- tion and Computer Graphics, 29(5):2337–2347, 2023. 2

    2023

  19. [27]

    Mems iner- tial sensor calibration technology: Current status and future trends

    Xu Ru, Nian Gu, Hang Shang, and Heng Zhang. Mems iner- tial sensor calibration technology: Current status and future trends. Micromachines, 13(6):879, 2022. 3

    2022

  20. [28]

    Xsens mvn: Consistent tracking of human motion using in- ertial sensing

    Martin Schepers, Matteo Giuberti, Giovanni Bellusci, et al. Xsens mvn: Consistent tracking of human motion using in- ertial sensing. Xsens Technol, 1(8):1–8, 2018. 1

    2018

  21. [29]

    Bidirectional recurrent neural networks

    Mike Schuster and Kuldip K Paliwal. Bidirectional recurrent neural networks. IEEE transactions on Signal Processing, 45 (11):2673–2681, 1997. 2

    1997

  22. [30]

    Total capture: 3d human pose estimation fusing video and inertial sensors

    Matthew Trumble, Andrew Gilbert, Charles Malleson, Adrian Hilton, and John P Collomosse. Total capture: 3d human pose estimation fusing video and inertial sensors. In BMVC, pages 1–13. London, UK, 2017. 6, 7, 8, 2, 3

    2017

  23. [31]

    Sigma-point Kalman filters for probabilistic inference in dynamic state-space models

    Rudolph Van Der Merwe. Sigma-point Kalman filters for probabilistic inference in dynamic state-space models. Ore- gon Health & Science University, 2004. 5

    2004

  24. [32]

    Diffusion inertial poser: Human mo- tion reconstruction from arbitrary sparse imu configurations

    Tom Van Wouwe, Seunghwan Lee, Antoine Falisse, Scott Delp, and C Karen Liu. Diffusion inertial poser: Human mo- tion reconstruction from arbitrary sparse imu configurations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.16682, 2023. 1

    2023 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Sparse inertial poser: Automatic 3d hu- man pose estimation from sparse imus

    Timo V on Marcard, Bodo Rosenhahn, Michael J Black, and Gerard Pons-Moll. Sparse inertial poser: Automatic 3d hu- man pose estimation from sparse imus. In Computer graph- ics forum, pages 349–360. Wiley Online Library, 2017. 1, 2

    2017

  26. [34]

    The unscented kalman filter for nonlinear estimation

    Eric A Wan and Rudolph Van Der Merwe. The unscented kalman filter for nonlinear estimation. In Proceedings of the IEEE 2000 adaptive systems for signal processing, commu- nications, and control symposium (Cat. No. 00EX373), pages 153–158. Ieee, 2000. 4

    2000

  27. [35]

    Transpose: Real-time 3d human translation and pose estimation with six inertial sensors

    Xinyu Yi, Yuxiao Zhou, and Feng Xu. Transpose: Real-time 3d human translation and pose estimation with six inertial sensors. ACM Transactions On Graphics (TOG) , 40(4):1– 13, 2021. 1, 2, 6, 7

    2021

  28. [36]

    Phys- ical inertial poser (pip): Physics-aware real-time human mo- tion tracking from sparse inertial sensors

    Xinyu Yi, Yuxiao Zhou, Marc Habermann, Soshi Shimada, Vladislav Golyanik, Christian Theobalt, and Feng Xu. Phys- ical inertial poser (pip): Physics-aware real-time human mo- tion tracking from sparse inertial sensors. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer visio...

    2022

  29. [37]

    Egolocate: Real-time motion capture, localization, and map- ping with sparse body-mounted sensors

    Xinyu Yi, Yuxiao Zhou, Marc Habermann, Vladislav Golyanik, Shaohua Pan, Christian Theobalt, and Feng Xu. Egolocate: Real-time motion capture, localization, and map- ping with sparse body-mounted sensors. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG), 42(4):1–17, 2023. 2

    2023

  30. [38]

    Physical non-inertial poser (pnp): Modeling non-inertial effects in sparse-inertial human motion capture

    Xinyu Yi, Yuxiao Zhou, and Feng Xu. Physical non-inertial poser (pnp): Modeling non-inertial effects in sparse-inertial human motion capture. In ACM SIGGRAPH 2024 Confer- ence Papers, pages 1–11, 2024. 1, 2, 6, 7

    2024

  31. [39]

    A survey of indoor localization systems and technologies

    Faheem Zafari, Athanasios Gkelias, and Kin K Leung. A survey of indoor localization systems and technologies. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials , 21(3):2568– 2599, 2019. 3

    2019

  32. [40]

    Dynamic inertial poser (dynaip): Part- based motion dynamics learning for enhanced human pose estimation with sparse inertial sensors

    Yu Zhang, Songpengcheng Xia, Lei Chu, Jiarui Yang, Qi Wu, and Ling Pei. Dynamic inertial poser (dynaip): Part- based motion dynamics learning for enhanced human pose estimation with sparse inertial sensors. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Patte...

    2024

  33. [41]

    On the continuity of rotation representations in neural networks

    Yi Zhou, Connelly Barnes, Jingwan Lu, Jimei Yang, and Hao Li. On the continuity of rotation representations in neural networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 5745–5753,

  34. [42]

    lower leg - pelvis

    Chengxu Zuo, Yiming Wang, Lishuang Zhan, Shihui Guo, Xinyu Yi, Feng Xu, and Yipeng Qin. Loose inertial poser: Motion capture with imu-attached loose-wear jacket. InPro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 2209–2219, 2024. 1 UMo...

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.