TABLE III.

Summary of instrumenting the TUG test with video-based technologies in chronological order. M = male, D = dimensional.

Article	Population and Sample Size	Description of TUG Technology	Study Findings
Berrada et al. (2007) [51]	N/A	1 video camera.	Timing in the video sequences is noisy.
Durfee et al. (2007) [50]	10 healthy (2M, 18-35 years).	Video and audio conferencing system.	No significant differences between TUG scores assessed locally and remotely.
Skrba et al. (2009) [52]	29 fallers and 23 non- fallers (18M, mean age 70.9 years).	BioMOBIUS with 2 webcams.	Discrimination of fallers and non- fallers by using automated component timings and head positioning during turning.
Wang et al. (2011) [53]	7 healthy (age range 25- 88 years).	2 calibrated digital cameras.	180° turn time extracted from video exhibited a mean difference of 0.11 seconds compared with therapist times.
Lohmann et al. (2012) [56]	5 age-related medical conditions (2M, 70-84 years). 4 healthy (4M, 29- 31 years).	2 Kinects.	High timing precision when compared with human stopwatch time. Timing of subtask components.
Kitsunezaki et al. (2013) [57]	6 healthy.	1 Kinect.	The differences between Kinect and human scored stopwatch times and the times were averaged to 0.33 seconds.
Cippitelli et al. (2014) [59]	N/A	1 Kinect.	Analysis of head, shoulder, knee, ankle, hip, and elbow joint angles.