Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Body composition, energy expenditure and physical activity

Clinically applicable optical imaging technology for body size and shape analysis: comparison of systems differing in design



Recent advances have extended anthropometry beyond flexible tape measurements to automated three-dimensional optical devices that rapidly acquire hundreds of body surface dimensions. Three new devices were recently introduced that share in common inexpensive optical cameras. The design, and thus potential clinical applicability, of these systems differ substantially leading us to critically evaluate their accuracy and precision.


113 adult subjects completed evaluations by the three optical devices (KX-16 (16 stationary cameras), Proscanner (1 vertically oscillating camera), and Styku scanner (1 stationary camera)), air displacement plethysmography (ADP), dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) and a flexible tape measure. Optical measurements were compared to reference method estimates that included results acquired by flexible tape, DXA and ADP.


Optical devices provided respective circumference and regional volume estimates that overall were well-correlated with those obtained from flexible tape measurements (for example, hip circumference: R2, 0.91, 0.90, 0.96 for the KX-16, Proscanner, and Styku scanner, respectively) and DXA (for example, trunk volume: R2, 0.97, 0.97, and 0.98). Total body volumes measured by the optical devices were highly correlated with those from the ADP system (all R2s, 0.99). Coefficient of variations obtained from duplicate measurements (n, 55) were larger in optical than in reference measurements and significant (P<0.05) bias was present for some optical measurements relative to reference method estimates.


Overall, the evaluated optical imaging systems differing in design provided body surface measurements that compared favorably with corresponding reference methods. However, our evaluations uncovered system measurement limitations, such as discrepancies in landmarking, that with correction have the potential to improve future developed devices.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3


  1. 1

    FerroLuzzi A, Garza C, Haas J, Habicht DP, Himes J, Pradilla A et al. Physical status: the use and interpretation of anthropometry - Introduction. Who Tech Rep Ser 1995; 854: 1–3.

    Google Scholar 

  2. 2

    Heymsfield SB, Stevens J . Anthropometry: continued refinements and new developments of an ancient method. Am J Clin Nutr 2017; 105: 1–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3

    Himes JH . Anthropometric Assessment of Nutritional Status. Wiley-Liss: New York, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  4. 4

    Cameron N . The Measurement of Human Growth. Croom Helm: London, 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  5. 5

    Madden AM, Smith S . Body composition and morphological assessment of nutritional status in adults: a review of anthropometric variables. J Hum Nutr Diet 2016; 29: 7–25.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6

    Ulijaszek SJ, Mascie-Taylor CGN . Anthropometry: The Individual and the Population.First ednvol. 14, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 1994.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  7. 7

    de Groot LC, Sette S, Zajkas G, Carbajal A, Amorim JA . Nutritional status: anthropometry. Euronut SENECA investigators. Eur J Clin Nutr 1991; 45: 31–42.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 8

    Lohman TG, Roche AF, Martorell R . Anthropometric Standardization Reference Manual. Human Kinetics Books: Champaign, IL, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  9. 9

    Frisancho AR . Anthropometric Standards for the Assessment of Growth and Nutritional Status. University of Michigan Press: Ann Arbor, 1990.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  10. 10

    Roche AF, Mukherjee D, Guo SM, Moore WM . Head circumference reference data: birth to 18 years. Pediatrics 1987; 79: 706–712.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 11

    Paxton A, Lederman SA, Heymsfield SB, Wang J, Thornton JC, Pierson RN Jr . Anthropometric equations for studying body fat in pregnant women. Am J Clin Nutr 1998; 67: 104–110.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12

    Piers LS, Diggavi SN, Thangam S, van Raaij JM, Shetty PS, Hautvast JG . Changes in energy expenditure, anthropometry, and energy intake during the course of pregnancy and lactation in well-nourished Indian women. Am J Clin Nutr 1995; 61: 501–513.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13

    Braganca S, Arezes PM, Carvalho M . An overview of the current three-dimensional body scanners for anthropometric data collection. In: Arezes PM, Baptista JS, Barroso MP, Carneiro P, Cordeiro P, Costa N et al(eds) Occupational Safety and Hygiene III. CRC Press: Taylor & Francis Group: London, 2015; pp 149–154.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  14. 14

    Capers PL, Kinsey AW, Miskell EL, Affuso O . Visual representation of body shape in African-American and European American women: clinical considerations. Clin Med Insights Womens Health 2016; 9, 63–70.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. 15

    Brooke-Wavell K, Jones PR, West GM . Reliability and repeatability of 3-D body scanner (LASS) measurements compared to anthropometry. Ann Hum Biol 1994; 21: 571–577.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16

    Soileau L, Bautista D, Johnson C, Gao C, Zhang K, Li X et al. Automated anthropometric phenotyping with novel Kinect-based three-dimensional imaging method: comparison with a reference laser imaging system. Eur J Clin Nutr 2016; 70: 475–481.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17

    Xie B, Avila JI, Ng BK, Fan B, Loo V, Gilsanz V et al. Accurate body composition measures from whole-body silhouettes. Med Phys 2015; 42: 4668–4677.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18

    Ng BK, Hinton BJ, Fan B, Kanaya AM, Shepherd JA . Clinical anthropometrics and body composition from 3D whole-body surface scans. Eur J Clin Nutr 2016; 70: 1265–1270.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19

    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS)National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES): Anthropometry Procedures Manual. In: US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (eds) Hyattsville MD Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  20. 20

    Method for registration of 3-D shapes. Proc. SPIE 1611, Sensor Fusion IV: Control Paradigms and Data Structures; April 30, 1992; Boston, MA, USA 1992.

  21. 21

    KinectFusion: real-time 3D reconstruction and interaction using a moving depth camera. 24th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology; Oct. 16, 2011. ACM, 2011.

  22. 22

    Kazhdan M, Bolitho M, Hoppe H . Poisson surface reconstruction. In: Polthier K, Sheffer A (eds). Eurographics Symposium on Geometry Processing. The Eurographics Association: Cagliari, Sardinia, 2006, pp 61–70.

    Google Scholar 

  23. 23

    Graham RL . An efficient algorithm for determining the convex hull of a finite planar set. Inf Process Lett 1972; 1: 132–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24

    Schuna Jr JM, Peterson CM, Thomas DM, Heo M, Hong S, Choi W et al. Scaling of adult regional body mass and body composition as a whole to height: relevance to body shape and body mass index. Am J Hum Biol 2015; 27: 372–379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25

    Wilson JP, Mulligan K, Fan B, Sherman JL, Murphy EJ, Tai VW et al. Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry-based body volume measurement for 4-compartment body composition. Am J Clin Nutr 2012; 95: 25–31.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26

    Collins AL, McCarthy HD . Evaluation of factors determining the precision of body composition measurements by air displacement plethysmography. Eur J Clin Nutr 2003; 57: 770–776.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27

    Withers RT, Laforgia J, Heymsfield SB . Critical appraisal of the estimation of body composition via two-, three-, and four-compartment models. Am J Hum Biol 1999; 11: 175–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28

    Resolving multipath interference in kinect: An inverse problem approach. IEEE Sensors 2014. IEEE, 2014.

Download references


The authors acknowledge the input provided by optical device manufacturers on the operational details of their respective systems. This work was partially supported by two National Institutes of Health NORC Center Grants P30DK072476, Pennington/Louisiana; and P30DK040561, Harvard; and R01DK109008, Shape UP! Adults.

Author contributions

BB, CRS, LR, XL, BKN, JAS and SBH analyzed the data and drafted the manuscript; BB, DL, CRS, LR, JAS and SBH designed the study; BB, DL, CRS and SBH directed implementation and data collection; BB, DL, CRS and LR collected the data; LR, JAS and SBH provided necessary logistical support; BB, DL, CRS, LR, XL, BKN, JAS and SBH edited the manuscript for intellectual content and provided critical comments on the manuscript.

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to S B Heymsfield.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Supplementary Information accompanies this paper on European Journal of Clinical Nutrition website

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bourgeois, B., Ng, B., Latimer, D. et al. Clinically applicable optical imaging technology for body size and shape analysis: comparison of systems differing in design. Eur J Clin Nutr 71, 1329–1335 (2017).

Download citation

Further reading


Quick links