Table 3.
Challenges, limitations, and future directions of different computer vision sensing and data processing approaches.
Current approaches / Problems | Future directions / Improvements/ Challenges | |
---|---|---|
Sensors | Current approaches | Future directions |
Mostly 2D single cameras | Multiple 2D cameras | |
Problems | 3D (depth) sensors | |
Only 2D information | Pressure mat sensors | |
Occlusions | Improvements | |
3D information | ||
Less occlusions | ||
More information due to multi-sensory integration | ||
Data | Current approaches | Future directions |
Small datasets | Collect more data | |
Problems | Make it publicly available | |
Not enough data to employ deep learning methods | Make use of home videos | |
Not publicly available - no benchmarking possible | Employ DL methods | |
Incorrect or incomplete data in some cases, e.g., inaccurate outcome labelling due to lack of longitudinal studies, the inclusion of incorrect age-specificity cases, use of low-inter-rater agreement or small rater-group or lack of experienced raters in data labelling, disorders or gender misrepresentation | Make use of transfer learning (e.g., Tan et al., 2018) | |
Challenges | ||
Need to solve anonymisation issue (automated techniques for face detection and replacement can be applied) | ||
Development of methods which can cope with different light conditions, resolution, frame rate | ||
Body areas of interest | Current approaches | Future directions |
Mostly movement of arms, legs, head | Hand, fingers, feet | |
Problems | Eye movement data | |
Incomplete information of full-body movement | Mimic | |
Challenges | ||
Integration and analysis of multimodal information | ||
Motion tracking | Current approaches | Future directions |
Mostly in 2D space | Full-body tracking in 3D using well-established methods in DL (e.g., DeepLabCut and OpenPose frameworks) | |
Problems | Challenges | |
Only 2D information | DL methods need to be adapted to infants | |
Motion encoding | Current approaches | Future directions |
Conventional features based on: displacement, distance, velocity, acceleration, speed, and time | Motion encoding using well-established methods from robotics: | |
Problems | Dynamic Movement Primitives (e.g., Ijspeert, Nakanishi, Hoffmann, Pastor, & Schaal, 2013), Gaussian Mixture Models (e.g., Calinon, 2016; Khansari Zadeh & Billard, 2011), Probabilistic Movement Primitives (Paraschos, Daniel, Peters, & Neumann, 2018) | |
Only 2D features | Learn features from expert knowledge during observation (e.g., Silva et al., 2018, 2019) | |
Improvements | ||
3D features | ||
New motion encoding and features | ||
Classification algorithms | Current approaches | Future directions |
Conventional ML methods, e.g., SVM, Decision Trees, Neural | Employ ANN, DL | |
Networks, Hidden Markov Models | Employ Interactive Machine Learning (learning with feedback) | |
Supervised learning without feedback during learning | Improvements | |
Better models with more accurate predictions | ||
Challenges | ||
More data is needed |