This presentation asserts a way to understand the confidence a person may have in measurements exacted from 3D Body Scanners. We assert a simple method and analyse 3D Body Scanner outputs to Engineering specifications. Our analysis proves which measurements can offer 100% assurance in their appropriateness for making cloths, and which are only correct 66/100 times.
PAPER REFERENCE
Parker, C.J., Gill, S. and Hayes, S.S.G. (2017), “3D Body Scanning has Suitable Reliability : An Anthropometric Investigation for Garment Construction”, in D’Apuzzo, N. (Ed.), 8th International Conference and Exhibition on 3D Body Scanning and Processing Technologies, Hometrica Consulting, Montreal, Canada, available at:https://doi.org/10.15221/17.298.
100 FREE BODY SCANS
http://dx.doi.org/10.17632/xgrcptfpwt.1
5. @UserGenDesignPaper: 3D Body Scanning has Suitable Reliability
Key Points
1. 3D Body Scanners do not have one reliability score, they have many.
2. Users need to determine their allowable errors.
3. Manufacturers need to communicate the reliability of each measurement.
4. Users need to critically consider if the scanner will deliver required
reliability.
7. @UserGenDesignPaper: 3D Body Scanning has Suitable Reliability
The Problem
• The global fashion industry > $212 Billion
• 3D Body Scanning promises a data driven revolution in fashion
• Virtual Tailoring has been an ongoing industry goal
• BUT is 3D Body Scanning reliable enough?
• To drive further integration of Body Scanning in industry, the technologies’
reliability must be fully understood and communicable.
8. @UserGenDesignPaper: 3D Body Scanning has Suitable Reliability
–Every Body Scanner User
“We expect 3D Body Scanning measurements to match the
accuracy and reliability of manual methods used by experts”
13. @UserGenDesignPaper: 3D Body Scanning has Suitable Reliability
Research Aim
• To establish a method of communicating reliability in 3D Body Scanning
• To provide benchmarks for allowable error and reliability
• To offer guidance on where 3D Body Scanning may be the most and least
reliable
15. @UserGenDesignPaper: 3D Body Scanning has Suitable Reliability
Previous Literature
• Previous research has not been specific about methods to make scanning
comparable
• Limited knowledge on variability of manual measurement variation in the
clothing industry.
• 3D Body Scanning is ‘reliable’ [8], [11], [12], [16], usually meaning less
variation between practitioners.
• Other research has provided a single reliability figure [27]
• Earlier research said 3D Body Scanning is comparable to manual methods [4],
[12], [15]
16. @UserGenDesignPaper: 3D Body Scanning has Suitable Reliability
Engineering: Three Important Terms
• Appropriateness
• Are we taking the right measurement
• Accuracy
• The closeness of the measurement taken to it’s ‘True’ value
• Reliability
• Confidence that variation in measurements is within allowable error
17. Allowable Error
• You design and manufacture to
specific dimensions
• An engine needs a rod that
needs to be a precise length and
diameter
• It can be smaller or larger by Set
limits (allowable error)
• If the reliability of the
manufacturing it LESS than the
allowable error, everything is
good
18.
19. Normal Distribution
• Theory
• Communicate reliability as 3 SD (e.g. +-
5mm)
• 99.73% of the sample occurs in this area
• 9 in 2,500 are outside this reliability
• Application
• You can measure the RIGHT body part
• But if your reliability is GREATER than
Allowable error, you loose confidence.
• Reliability is communicated in 3 SD of
variance
21. Methods
• 27 Participants
• Size Stream 14 Body Scanner
• Established scan protocol (see paper)
• 5 Repeat Body Scans
• 90 Body Measurements Taken
• Average standard deviation taken for each
measurement
• Data analysed with SPSS 23
22. @UserGenDesignPaper: 3D Body Scanning has Suitable Reliability
Reliability Calculation
• Each person’s standard deviation
calculated for each measurement
• Average Standard deviation calculated
for each measurement
• Average standard deviation per
measurement multiplied by 3
• Reflects 99.73% of the average
variance in measurements
23. Descriptives
• Gender (n=27)
• 15 Male, 12 Female
• Age
• 19-60 (M=31, SD = 10.3)
• Ethnicity
• White (N=22)
• Height to Waist ratio had no significant
association with reliability
• 12,150 total measurements
25. @UserGenDesignPaper: 3D Body Scanning has Suitable Reliability
FINDINGS
• Less that half (49%) of measurements were within the allowable error of the
best manual method benchmarks
• Note: Industry has no strict guidelines (many people measure very
differently) and thus tighter universal definitions are needed.
• Reliability is not universal, it is measurement dependant
26. @UserGenDesignPaper: 3D Body Scanning has Suitable Reliability
Reliability of Measurements (excluding heights)
99.73% 95.46% 68.26%
27. 99.73% Reliability
• Min Lower Leg Girth (Right)
• Under Knee Height (Right)
• Calf Circumference (Right)
• Bicep Circumference (Left)
• Under Knee Height (Left)
• Back Neck to Shoulder Blade Tape
Measure
• Seat Fold Height
• Across Chest Arm to Arm Length
• Under Knee Circumference (Left)
• Forearm Circumference (Left)
• Chin Height
• Under Knee Circumference (Right)
• Side Neck to Bust length (Right)
• Side Neck to Bust length (Left)
• Thigh Circumference (Right)
• Abdomen Circumference
• Forearm Circumference (Right)
• Thigh Circumference (Left)
29. 95.46% Reliability
• Opt Small of Back Waist
• Outer Arm Hole Circumference (Left)
• Elbow Height Waist
• Arm Hole Circumference (Right)
• Elbow Height Waist
• Outer Arm Hole Circumference (Right)
• Arm Hole Circumference (Left)
• Collar Circumference
• Back Vertical Rise
• Opt Small Waist Back Height
• Opt Small Waist Front Height
• Opt Small Waist Left Height
• Elbow Circumference Tape Measure
(Right)
• Opt Small Waist Right Height
• Half Back Centre
• Outside Leg Length (Right)
• Actual Ankle Circumference (Right)
• Outside Leg Length (Right)
• Actual Ankle Circumference (Right)
• Elbow Circumference (Left)
• Outside Leg Length (Left)
• Across Back
• Actual Ankle Circumference (Left)
• Low Hip to Small Of Back Optimised Waist
30. 68.26% Reliability
• Actual Mid-Thigh Circumference (Right)
• Actual Mid-Thigh Circumference Left
• Stomach Circumference
• Shoulder Length (Right)
• Wrist Circumference (Left)
• Min lower leg Height (Left)
• Front Hip
• Sleeve Length (Right)
• Back Neck to Back Chest Contour Length
• Arm Length (Right)
• Arm Under Length (Right)
• Abdomen Rise
• Back Shoulder Width Horizontal
• Shoulder Length (Left)
• Abdomen Height
• Min lower leg Height (Right)
• Front Waist
• Wrist Circumference (Right)
31. @UserGenDesignPaper: 3D Body Scanning has Suitable Reliability
Unreliable (<68.26%)
• Actual Knee Circumference (Right)
• Sleeve Length (Left)
• Arm Under Length (Left)
32. @UserGenDesignPaper: 3D Body Scanning has Suitable Reliability
Reliability of Measurements (excluding heights)
99.73% 95.46% 68.26%
33. @UserGenDesignPaper: 3D Body Scanning has Suitable Reliability
Outcome
• Many key 3D Body Scan measurements are suitably reliable for garment
construction….But many are not
• Therefore no Manufacturer, Scientist, or Engineer should consider a 3D
Body Scanner as having a single reference of reliability
• Instead, each measurement needs to be proved reliable
• This contradicts many earlier and less thorough research publications.
35. @UserGenDesignPaper: 3D Body Scanning has Suitable Reliability
Research Aim
• To establish a method of communicating reliability in 3D Body Scanning
• To provide benchmarks for allowable error and reliability
• To offer guidance on where 3D Body Scanning may be the most and least
reliable
36. @UserGenDesignPaper: 3D Body Scanning has Suitable Reliability
Implications
• Reliability of 3D Body Scanners needs to be communicated at the
Measurement level to 3 Standard Deviations (99.73% confidence).
• Practitioners need to ascertain their allowable error before adopting any 3D
Body Scanning
• Researchers need to collect multiple scans (5) as part of their protocol in
order to tests their equipment and communicate it as suitably reliable.
37. @UserGenDesignPaper: 3D Body Scanning has Suitable Reliability
Limitations
• Only used one scanner (SizeStream 14)
• Complimentary studies within ADE suggest this varied reliability is not
specific to SizeStream (i.e. TC2 et al. too)
• Comparable to current technologies on show today.
• Small sample size
• 27 participants = 12,150 measurements
• Good for statistics, but needs greater numbers for generalisability
38. @UserGenDesignPaper: 3D Body Scanning has Suitable Reliability
Further Research
• Calculate influence of human body in reliability
• Comparison of multiple scanners
• Partner with YOU
• Repeat scans with your equipment
• Develop new protocols for scanning
• Develop new software for virtual tailoring, lifestyle advice, and virtual fit
Use this research to prove Body Scanning is Reliable
BUT we need to have a conversation
All slides are online now @ Research Gate
Vitronic - “Very Accurate Technology… its about accurate measurements”
Botspot (we need fast scans)
don’t move
don’t blink
don't breath
Previous Literature
Engineering Terms
SizeStream has done reliability analysis on plus sized persons
Findings have not been communicated.
Bespokifie - The 95% confidence interval has been mentioned in Conference and in 2014
BUT WHY 95%? You need to understand the amount of error you can live with. In Engineering 99.73% Confidence is commonly accepted.
POINT 2 - Do we use a SizeStream or am IBV iPhone App in our pocket?