An innovative model for the integration of artificial intelligence to enhance the efficiency of digital cartography

  1. Home
  2. Archive
  3. № 2 (71)
Author(s) Collection number Pages Download abstract Download full text
Liakh I. M., Кляп М. П., Чухрай Я. О., Садварі М. М. № 2 (71) 54-63 Image Image

The paper tackles the problem of selecting an optimal tracking method for a virtual fitting room (VFR) that overlays digital garments on a user avatar in real time. Because user experience in VFR depends critically on tracking accuracy, temporal stability, robustness to occlusions, and end-to-end latency, we frame the choice of technology as a multi-criteria decision problem. We employ the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) to compare three representative approaches—optical, inertial, and magnetic tracking—against five criteria: accuracy, latency, reliability (incl. occlusion tolerance), cost of ownership, and integration complexity with 3D/AR rendering pipelines. The study combines a literature-grounded scoring scheme with expert pairwise comparisons and sensitivity analysis. We also report a lightweight prototyping exercise that couples each candidate tracker with a standardized garment draping stack and avatar animation loop, enabling consistent latency and stability measurements under identical test scenes. Results indicate that optical tracking achieves the highest global priority (0.492) due to superior spatial fidelity and mature vision toolchains, while inertial tracking ranks second (0.336), offering strong short-term stability and low marginal latency but re­quiring drift compensation and calibration. Magnetic tracking (0.172) shows niche suita­bility in controlled environments because of susceptibility to field disturbances and integration constraints. Sensitivity tests confirm the preference ordering under broad shifts of criterion weights (±20%), and a cost-latency frontier highlights Pa­reto-efficient blends where a hybrid optical-inertial stack reduces micro-jitter and oc­clusion gaps without materially increasing latency. We provide a reproducible AHP template, implementation notes for VFR pipelines (pose fusion, temporal filtering, error budgeting), and deployment recommendations for retail settings with variable lighting and space constraints. The proposed method offers a transparent, data-driven basis for technology selection and can be adapted to future trackers (e.g., event-based cameras) and emerging AR frameworks.

Keywords: virtual fitting room, tracking, Analytic Hierarchy Process, optical tra­cking, inertial sensors, AHP, VR/AR.

doi: 10.32403/1998-6912-2025-2-71-33-53


  • 1. Sadeghi-Niaraki A., Choi S.-M. A survey of marker-less tracking and registration techniques for health & environmental applications to augmented reality and ubiquitous geospatial in­formation systems. Sensors. 2020. Vol. 20, No. 10. Art. 2997. DOI: 10.3390/s20102997.
  • 2. Vox J. P., Weber A., Wolf K. I., Izdebski K., Schüler T., König P., Wallhoff F., Friemert D. An evaluation of motion trackers with virtual reality sensor technology in comparison to a marker-based motion capture system based on joint angles for ergonomic risk assessment. Sensors. 2021. Vol. 21, No. 9. Art. 3145. DOI: 10.3390/s21093145.
  • 3. Warburton M., Mon-Williams M., Mushtaq F. та ін. Measuring motion-to-photon latency for sensorimotor experiments with virtual reality systems. Behavior Research Methods. 2023. Vol. 55. С. 3658–3678. DOI: 10.3758/s13428-022-01983-5.
  • 4. Dixit A., Kumar S., Gupta R. Minimizing the motion-to-photon delay (MPD) in VR. arXiv. 2023. arXiv:2301.01234.
  • 5. Robotics and Perception Group. Visual and Inertial Odometry and SLAM. URL: https://rpg.ifi.uzh.ch/research_vo.html.
  • 6. Yang J., Xu X., Xu Z., Wu Z., Chu W. RWKV-VIO: An Efficient and Low-Drift Visual–Inertial Odometry Using an End-to-End Deep Network. Sensors. 2025. Vol. 25, No. 18. Art. 5737. DOI: 10.3390/s25185737.
  • 7. LaScalza S., Arico J., Hughes R. Effect of metal and sampling rate on accuracy of Flock of Birds electromagnetic tracking system. Journal of Biomechanics. 2003. Vol. 36, No. 1. С. 141–144. DOI: 10.1016/S0021-9290(02)00322-6.
  • 8. Poulin F., Amiot L.-P. Interference during the use of an electromagnetic tracking system under OR conditions. Journal of Biomechanics. 2002. Vol. 35, No. 6. С. 733–737. DOI: 10.1016/S0021-9290(02)00036-2.
  • 9. Cavaliere M., Cantillon-Murphy P. Enhancing electromagnetic tracking accuracy in medical applications using pre-trained witness sensor distortion models. Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery. 2024. Vol. 19, No. 1. С. 27–31. DOI: 10.1007/s11548-023-02994-z.
  • 10. Deveci M. Measuring head-mounted display’s (HMD) motion-to-photon (MTP) latency. OptoFidelity. 2021. 20 травня. URL: https://www.optofidelity.com/insights/blogs/measuring-head-mounted-displays-hmd-motion-to-photon-mtp-latency.
  • 11. Saaty T. L. Fundamentals of the Analytic Hierarchy Process. In: Schmoldt D. L., Kangas J., Mendoza G. A., Pesonen M. (eds). The Analytic Hierarchy Process in Natural Resource and Environmental Decision Making. Managing Forest Ecosystems, vol. 3. Dordrecht: Springer, 2001. С. 15–35. DOI: 10.1007/978-94-015-9799-9_2.
  • 12. Korak G., Kucera G. Optical Tracking System. International Journal of Electronics and Te­le­communications. 2015. Vol. 61. DOI: 10.1515/eletel-2015-0021.
  • 13. Lang P., Kusej A., Pinz A., Brasseur G. Inertial tracking for mobile augmented reality. Con­ference Record — IEEE Instrumentation and Measurement Technology Conference. 2002. Vol. 2. С. 1583–1587. DOI: 10.1109/IMTC.2002.1007196.
  • 14. Franz A., Haidegger T., Birkfellner W., Cleary K., Peters T., Maier-Hein L. Electromagnetic Tracking in Medicine — A Review of Technology, Validation, and Applications. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging. 2014. DOI: 10.1109/TMI.2014.2321777.