Suitability of the Kinect Sensor and Leap Motion Controller-A Literature Review - PubMed Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2019 Mar 2;19(5):1072.
doi: 10.3390/s19051072.

Suitability of the Kinect Sensor and Leap Motion Controller-A Literature Review

Tibor Guzsvinecz  1 , Veronika Szucs  2 , Cecilia Sik-Lanyi  3
Affiliations
Review

Suitability of the Kinect Sensor and Leap Motion Controller-A Literature Review

Tibor Guzsvinecz et al. Sensors (Basel). .

Abstract

As the need for sensors increases with the inception of virtual reality, augmented reality and mixed reality, the purpose of this paper is to evaluate the suitability of the two Kinect devices and the Leap Motion Controller. When evaluating the suitability, the authors' focus was on the state of the art, device comparison, accuracy, precision, existing gesture recognition algorithms and on the price of the devices. The aim of this study is to give an insight whether these devices could substitute more expensive sensors in the industry or on the market. While in general the answer is yes, it is not as easy as it seems: There are significant differences between the devices, even between the two Kinects, such as different measurement ranges, error distributions on each axis and changing depth precision relative to distance.

Keywords: Kinect; Leap Motion; accuracy; gesture recognition; human motion tracking; human-computer interaction; precision; suitability.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
The types of realities, from real to virtual [4].
Figure 2
Figure 2
Parts of Human-Computer Interaction [7].
Figure 3
Figure 3
Selection of the relevant papers based on the Prisma 2009 Flow Diagram.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Flow of data between parts of the Kinect v1.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Illustration of the Time-of-Flight method.
Figure 6
Figure 6
The different axes of the LMC.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Sherman W.R., Craig A.B. Understanding Virtual Reality—Interface, Application, and Design. Presence Teleoperators Virtual Env. 2003 doi: 10.1162/105474603322391668. - DOI
    1. Kipper G., Rampolla J. Augmented Reality: An Emerging Technologies Guide to AR. Syngress; Waltham, MA, USA: 2012.
    1. Tamura H., Yamamoto H., Katayama A. Mixed reality: Future dreams seen at the border between real and virtual worlds. Ieee Comput. Graph. Appl. 2001 doi: 10.1109/38.963462. - DOI
    1. Hantono B.S., Nugroho L.E., Santosa P.I. Review of augmented reality agent in education; Proceedings of the 2016 6th International Annual Engineering Seminar; Yogyakarta, Indonesia. 1–3 August 2016; - DOI
    1. Larsen E., Ummiger F., Ye X., Rimon N., Stafford J.R., Lou X. Methods and Systems for User Interaction within Virtual Reality Scene Using Head Mounted Display. Application No 10/073,516. U.S. Patent. 2018