AI-based human pose estimation in Fitness: A Review of posture correction, repetition counting, and range-of-motion methods


Abstract

This review examines the application of AI-based markerless human pose estimation (HPE) to exercise coaching, focusing on four essential functions: posture correction, repetition counting, range-of-motion (ROM) analysis, and exercise recognition. The review investigates which methods are most effective for each task and whether real-time solutions that scale across a variety of exercise types and application domains are available. Following a PRISMA-guided scoping protocol, 43 studies published between 2020 and 2025 are included. To map the tasks and methods of each study and to summarize their key findings, a master comparison table was made, and datasets, benchmarks, and reported hardware/FPS metrics are analyzed. To construct accurate, scalable, and end-to-end physical exercise coaching systems, this paper identifies present constraints and suggests future research areas. Datasets, failure modes (occlusions, user variation), and edge hardware real-time performance are analyzed. The review finds that AI-based systems may offer correct feedback for certain exercise sets in controlled circumstances, but dataset bias, small sample numbers, and unstable generalization to real-world home environments limit their efficacy. The paper outlines future directions, including hybrid architectures with deep backbones and interpretable rule-based heads, self-supervised learning, personalization and domain adaptation, uncertainty-aware feedback, and multi-task frameworks for posture, ROM, counting, and exercise recognition.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ Computer Science does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].