Background: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) causes a range of derangements including movement abnormalities. Presently, motion disorders are largely described qualitatively. Our group developed quantitative measurement devices: 1. wearable digital patch (Biostamp) (stretchable electronics) measuring motion with 6 degrees of freedom – an “on body” (contact) method, and 2. video telemedicine system using external markers (MOCA 2.0) – an “around-body” (non-contact) method, measuring body element movement, e.g. arms, fingers. We compared the relative performance of each system assessing a series of defined movements. We studied normal volunteers – free of CKD, to be utilized as controls for a next step patient CKD study. Methods: Six subjects (3:3 male:female) had both wearable digital sensor patches (on-body method) and small color paper markers (around-body method) applied. Subjects performed 6 defined movements, categorized as either small (<1 sq ft), medium (1-5 sq ft), or large (>5 sq ft). Each movement was performed for 30 seconds at both slow and fast pace, (n=3), for a total of 36 movement sessions. Digital signals for the on-body method were streamed and recorded contemporaneous with around-body video recording of subject movement. Analyzed data for each system was also compared to physical measurement of movements and distance traveled. Results: Simultaneous recording and quantitation of movements with both systems allowed for comparison of the two systems. The on-body digital patch system was able to detect all movements through positional acceleration and angular velocity which was processed into positional and angular data vs. time (Fig A, B.). The around-body system generated positional data vs. time, along with angles of movements for all movements performed (Fig C.). A limitation of the around-body system became apparent with small fast movements. For fast movement, camera lag frequently lost track of markers and did not accurately track movements, compared to the high level of fidelity and sensitivity seen with the digital patch system. Discussion: Both on-body and around body systems offer readily deployable means for capturing nuances of human motion useful for movement disorder diagnosis and monitoring. The on-body system reports data in angular velocities and accelerations which is converted into positional data. However, due to interpretation of forces registered by incorporated sensors, instead of true positional data, small errors may be introduced. In contrast the around-body video capture system utilizes video processing to directly yield positional data with respect to time. As actual positional data is measured this method is free of introduced sensor error, though has the limitation of inefficacy with movements too small or fast for camera capture. Understanding system constraints will allow future patient studies to advance with greater accuracy based on system choice.