Validation and Reliability of Sizestream 3D Scanner …
23
2. ISO 20685 (2005) 3D scanning methodologies for internationally compatible anthropometric.
ISO Standard 20685, International Standard Organisation, Geneva
3. ISO 20685 (2015) 3D scanning method for internationally compatible anthropometric
databases. ISO Standard 20685, International Standard Organisation, Geneva
4. Braganc AS, Arezes P, Carvalho M, Ashdown S, Xu B, Castellucci I (2017) Validation study
of a kinect based body imaging system. Work 57:9–21
5. Han H, Nam Y, Choi K (2010) Comparative analysis of 3D body scan measurements and
manual measurements of size Korea adult females. Int J Ind Ergon 40:530–540
6. Kouchi M (2014) Anthropometric methods for apparel design: body measurement devices and
techniques. In: Anthropometry, apparel sizing and design. Woodhead Publishing Limited in
association with the Textile Institute, Cambridge, United Kingdom, pp 79–80
7. ISO 8559 (1989) Garment construction and anthropometric surveys—Body dimensions. ISO
Standard 8559, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva
8. Vonk T, Danen H (2015) Validity and repeatability of the sizestream 3D scanner and Poikos
modeling system. In : 6th International conference on 3D body scanning technologies, Lugano
9. Koepke N, Zwahlen M, Wells J, Bender N, Henneberg M, Rühli F, Staub K (2017) Comparison
of 3D laser-based photonic scans and manual anthropometric measurements of body size and
shape in a validation study of 123 young Swiss men. PeerJ 2980
10. Koo T, Li M (2016) A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients
for reliability research. J Chiropract Med 15(2):155–163
11. Kouchi M, Mochimaru M (2011) Errors in landmarking and the evaluation of the accuracy of
traditional and 3D anthropometry. Appl Ergonom 42:518–527
12. Kuehnapfel A, Ahnert P, Loeffler M, Broda A, Scholz M (2016) Reliability of 3D laser-based
anthropometry and comparison with classical anthropometry. In: www.nature.com. https://
www.nature.com/articles/srep26672 https://www.nature.com/articles/srep26672
13. Daniell N, Olds T, Tomkinson G (2012) Technical note: criterion validity of whole body surface
area equations: a comparison using 3D laser scanning. Am J Phys Anthropol 148:148–155
14. Gordon CC, Blackwell CL, Bradtmiller B, Parham JL, Barrientos P, Paquette SP et al (2012)
Anthropometric survey of U.S. Army personnel: Methods and Sumamry Statistics (ANSUR
II). Comprehensive anthropometric survey of U.S. Army Soldiers (ANSUR II). Massachusetts:
U.S. Army Natick Soldier Research, Development and Engineering Center Natick; 2012.
Report No.: NATICK/TR-15/007
15. Simenko J, Cuk I (2016) Reliability and validity of NX-16 3D body scanner. Int J Morphol
34(4):1506–1514
16. Wang J, Gallagher D, Thornton JC, Yu W, Horlick M, Pi-Sunyer FX (2006) Validation of
a 3-dimensional photonic scanner for the measurement of body volumes, dimensions, and
percentage body fat. Am J Clin Nutr 83:809–816
17. Wells JCK, Stocks J, Bonner R, Raywood E, legg S, Lee S et al (2015) Acceptability, precision
and accuracy of 3D photonic scanning for measurement of body shape in a multi-ethnic sample
of children aged 5–11 years: the SLIC study. PLoS ONE 10(4)
18. Zancanaro C, Milanese C, Lovato C, Sandri M, Giachetti A (2015) Reliability of threedimensional photonic scanner anthropometry performed by skilled and naïve operators. Int
J Ergonom 5(5):1–11
19. Bougourd JP, Dekker L, Ross PG, Ward JP (2000) A Comparison of women’s sizing by 3D
electronic scanning and traditional anthropometry. J Text Inst 91(2):163–173
20. Paquette S, Brantley JD, Corner BD, Li P, Oliver T (2000) Automated extraction of anthropometric data from 3D images. In: Human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting
proceedings; 2000: HFES, pp 727–730
21. Robinettea KM, Daanenb HAM (2006) Precision of the CAESAR scan-extracted measurements. Appl Ergonom 37:259–265
22. Weinberg SM, Scott NM, Neiswanger K, Brandon CA, Marazita ML (2004) Digital threedimensional photogrammetry: evaluation of anthropometric precision and accuracy using a
Genex 3D camera system. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 41(5):507–518
23
2. ISO 20685 (2005) 3D scanning methodologies for internationally compatible anthropometric.
ISO Standard 20685, International Standard Organisation, Geneva
3. ISO 20685 (2015) 3D scanning method for internationally compatible anthropometric
databases. ISO Standard 20685, International Standard Organisation, Geneva
4. Braganc AS, Arezes P, Carvalho M, Ashdown S, Xu B, Castellucci I (2017) Validation study
of a kinect based body imaging system. Work 57:9–21
5. Han H, Nam Y, Choi K (2010) Comparative analysis of 3D body scan measurements and
manual measurements of size Korea adult females. Int J Ind Ergon 40:530–540
6. Kouchi M (2014) Anthropometric methods for apparel design: body measurement devices and
techniques. In: Anthropometry, apparel sizing and design. Woodhead Publishing Limited in
association with the Textile Institute, Cambridge, United Kingdom, pp 79–80
7. ISO 8559 (1989) Garment construction and anthropometric surveys—Body dimensions. ISO
Standard 8559, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva
8. Vonk T, Danen H (2015) Validity and repeatability of the sizestream 3D scanner and Poikos
modeling system. In : 6th International conference on 3D body scanning technologies, Lugano
9. Koepke N, Zwahlen M, Wells J, Bender N, Henneberg M, Rühli F, Staub K (2017) Comparison
of 3D laser-based photonic scans and manual anthropometric measurements of body size and
shape in a validation study of 123 young Swiss men. PeerJ 2980
10. Koo T, Li M (2016) A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients
for reliability research. J Chiropract Med 15(2):155–163
11. Kouchi M, Mochimaru M (2011) Errors in landmarking and the evaluation of the accuracy of
traditional and 3D anthropometry. Appl Ergonom 42:518–527
12. Kuehnapfel A, Ahnert P, Loeffler M, Broda A, Scholz M (2016) Reliability of 3D laser-based
anthropometry and comparison with classical anthropometry. In: www.nature.com. https://
www.nature.com/articles/srep26672 https://www.nature.com/articles/srep26672
13. Daniell N, Olds T, Tomkinson G (2012) Technical note: criterion validity of whole body surface
area equations: a comparison using 3D laser scanning. Am J Phys Anthropol 148:148–155
14. Gordon CC, Blackwell CL, Bradtmiller B, Parham JL, Barrientos P, Paquette SP et al (2012)
Anthropometric survey of U.S. Army personnel: Methods and Sumamry Statistics (ANSUR
II). Comprehensive anthropometric survey of U.S. Army Soldiers (ANSUR II). Massachusetts:
U.S. Army Natick Soldier Research, Development and Engineering Center Natick; 2012.
Report No.: NATICK/TR-15/007
15. Simenko J, Cuk I (2016) Reliability and validity of NX-16 3D body scanner. Int J Morphol
34(4):1506–1514
16. Wang J, Gallagher D, Thornton JC, Yu W, Horlick M, Pi-Sunyer FX (2006) Validation of
a 3-dimensional photonic scanner for the measurement of body volumes, dimensions, and
percentage body fat. Am J Clin Nutr 83:809–816
17. Wells JCK, Stocks J, Bonner R, Raywood E, legg S, Lee S et al (2015) Acceptability, precision
and accuracy of 3D photonic scanning for measurement of body shape in a multi-ethnic sample
of children aged 5–11 years: the SLIC study. PLoS ONE 10(4)
18. Zancanaro C, Milanese C, Lovato C, Sandri M, Giachetti A (2015) Reliability of threedimensional photonic scanner anthropometry performed by skilled and naïve operators. Int
J Ergonom 5(5):1–11
19. Bougourd JP, Dekker L, Ross PG, Ward JP (2000) A Comparison of women’s sizing by 3D
electronic scanning and traditional anthropometry. J Text Inst 91(2):163–173
20. Paquette S, Brantley JD, Corner BD, Li P, Oliver T (2000) Automated extraction of anthropometric data from 3D images. In: Human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting
proceedings; 2000: HFES, pp 727–730
21. Robinettea KM, Daanenb HAM (2006) Precision of the CAESAR scan-extracted measurements. Appl Ergonom 37:259–265
22. Weinberg SM, Scott NM, Neiswanger K, Brandon CA, Marazita ML (2004) Digital threedimensional photogrammetry: evaluation of anthropometric precision and accuracy using a
Genex 3D camera system. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 41(5):507–518