Fig. 2: Three exemplary ethomic fingerprints.

a, Left: workspace volume density plot generated using the 3D location of joints from a typical individual. Right: comparison of the workspace volume of individuals with DMD and healthy controls. The space is segmented in blocks of size 2 × 2 × 2 cm and the color of each block represents the frequency (shown on a log₁₀ scale in the color bar) of any joint visiting the block. The workspace volume of the healthy controls was significantly greater than that of individuals with DMD (Kruskal–Wallis one-way ANOVA, where *P ≤ 0.05, **P ≤ 0.01 and ***P ≤ 0.001). b, Left: hip trajectory of a typical individual with DMD. Right: comparison of the hip orbit area of individuals with DMD and healthy controls. The hip orbit area of ambulatory individuals with DMD was significantly lower compared to the healthy controls (P < 0.05, Kruskal–Wallis one-way ANOVA). c, Comparison between the mean velocities of the extremities of individuals with DMD and healthy controls. The mean velocity of healthy controls was significantly greater than that of individuals with DMD for all four extremities (P < 0.01, Kruskal–Wallis one-way ANOVA). a–c, Data are presented as the mean ± standard error. (n = 46 visits of individuals with DMD (41 ambulatory) and n = 21 healthy control visits). For a complete list of movement behavioral fingerprinting features and the exact P values of the Kruskal–Wallis one-way ANOVA tests, see Supplementary Table 5.