Gert S. Faber

Optimal inertial sensor location for ambulatory measurement of trunk inclination

Trunk inclination (TI) is used often to quantify back loading in ergonomic workplace evaluation. The aim of the present study was to determine whether TI can be obtained using a single inertial sensor (IS) on the back, and to determine the optimal IS location on the back for the estimation of TI. Gold standard TI, the angle between the vertical and the line connecting the L5/S1 joint and the trunk centre of mass, was measured using an optoelectronic system. Ten subjects performed experimental trials, each consisting of a symmetric and an asymmetric lifting task, and of a left-right lateral flexion movement. Trials were repeated and, in between trials, the IS was shifted in small steps from a location on the thorax towards a location on the sacrum. Optimal IS location was defined as the IS location with minimum root-mean-square (RMS) error between the gold standard TI and the IS TI. Averaged over subjects, the optimal IS location for symmetric and asymmetric lifting was at about 25% of the distance from the midpoint between the posterior superior iliac spines (MPSIS) to the C7 spinous process. The RMS error at this location, averaged over subjects, was 4.6+/-2.9 degrees. For the left-right lateral flexion task, the optimal IS location was at about 30% of the MPSIS to C7 distance. Because in most activities of daily living, pure lateral flexion does not occur often, it is recommended place the IS at 25% of the distance from the MPSIS to C7.

Working height, block mass and one- vs. two-handed block handling: the contribution to low back and shoulder loading during masonry work

The goal of this study was to compare the effects of the task variables block mass, working height and one- vs. two-handed block handling on low back and shoulder loading during masonry work. In a mock-up of a masonry work site, nine masonry workers performed one- and two-handed block-lifting and block-placing tasks at varying heights (ranging from floor to shoulder level) with blocks of varying mass (ranging from 6 to 16 kg). Kinematics and ground reaction forces were measured and used in a 3-D linked segment model to calculate low back and shoulder loading. Increasing lifting height appeared to be the most effective way to reduce low back loading. However, working at shoulder level resulted in relatively high shoulder loading. Therefore, it was recommended to organise masonry work in such a way that blocks are handled with the hands at about iliac crest height as much as possible.

Determination of joint moments with instrumented force shoes in a variety of tasks.

Ground reaction forces (GRFs) are often used in inverse dynamics analyses to determine joint loading. These GRFs are usually measured using force plates (FPs). As an alternative, instrumented force shoes (FSs) can be used, which have the advantage over FPs that they do not constrain foot placement. This study tested the FS system in one normal weight subject (77kg) performing 19 different lifting, pushing and pulling and walking tasks. Kinematics were measured with an optoelectronic system and the GRFs and the positions of the centre of pressure (CoP) were synchronously measured with FPs and FSs. Differences between the outcomes of the two measurement systems (i.e. CoP and GRFs) and the resulting ankle and L5/S1 joint moments were determined at the instant of the peak GRF (DaPF). For most lifting and pushing and pulling tasks, the difference between the FP and FS measurements remained small: GRF DaPF remained below 3% body weight, CoP DaPF remained below 10mm, ankle moment DaPF remained below 7% of the peak total ankle moment that occurred during normal walking and L5/S1 moment DaPF remained below 7% of the peak total L5/S1 moment that occurred during normal symmetric lifting. More substantial differences were only found in the maximal pushing tasks. For the walking tasks, peak vertical GRFs were somewhat underestimated. However, differences in ankle and L5/S1 moments remained small, i.e. DaPF below 7% of the peak total moment that occurred during normal walking.

Effect of initial horizontal object position on peak L5/S1 moments in manual lifting is dependent on task type and familiarity with alternative lifting strategies

This study investigated whether the effects of initial horizontal object position on peak L5/S1 total moment (PTM) are affected by task type or familiarity with alternative lifting strategies during manual lifting. Nine subjects lifted low-lying boxes from far and close initial horizontal positions in a typical laboratory lifting task (without any transportation of the load) and in a more realistic lifting task in which the box was transported to a location at a few metres distance. Subsequently, subjects were familiarised with alternative lifting strategies (e.g. shifting and tilting) and they then repeated the more realistic lifting task. Compared with the typical laboratory lifting task, the more realistic lifting task resulted in 6% larger PTMs for the close-positioned box. Familiarisation with alternative lifting techniques resulted in a 10% reduction in PTMs for the far-positioned box. As a result, the effect of initial horizontal box position on PTMs was smaller for the more realistic lifting task than for the typical laboratory lifting task and vanished after familiarisation with alternative lifting strategies. Statement of Relevance:This study showed that the effect of horizontal box position on peak L5/S1 moments is dependent on the type of lifting task (comparing a typical laboratory simulated lifting task with a more realistic task involving carrying the load for a short distance) and familiarity with alternative lifting strategies. Therefore, it is recommended that back loading should be evaluated in a realistic simulation of the work situation or at the workplace itself.

Bottom-up estimation of joint moments during manual lifting using orientation sensors instead of position sensors

L5/S1, hip and knee moments during manual lifting tasks are, in a laboratory environment, frequently established by bottom-up inverse dynamics, using force plates to measure ground reaction forces (GRFs) and an optoelectronic system to measure segment positions and orientations. For field measurements, alternative measurement systems are being developed. One alternative is the use of small body-mounted inertial/magnetic sensors (IMSs) and instrumented force shoes to measure segment orientation and GRFs, respectively. However, because IMSs measure segment orientations only, the positions of segments relative to each other and relative to the GRFs have to be determined by linking them, assuming fixed segment lengths and zero joint translation. This will affect the estimated joint positions and joint moments. This study investigated the effect of using segment orientations only (orientation-based method) instead of using orientations and positions (reference method) on three-dimensional joint moments. To compare analysis methods (and not measurement methods), GRFs were measured with a force plate and segment positions and/or orientations were measured using optoelectronic marker clusters for both analysis methods. Eleven male subjects lifted a box from floor level using three lifting techniques: a stoop, a semi-squat and a squat technique. The difference between the two analysis methods remained small for the knee moments: <4%. For the hip and L5/S1 moments, the differences were more substantial: up to 8% for the stoop and semi-squat techniques and up to 14% for the squat technique. In conclusion, joint moments during lifting can be estimated with good accuracy at the knee joint and with reasonable accuracy at the hip and L5/S1 joints using segment orientation and GRF data only.

Low-back loading in lifting two loads beside the body compared to lifting one load in front of the body

Low-back load during manual lifting is considered an important risk factor for the occurrence of low-back pain. Splitting a load, so it can be lifted beside the body (one load in each hand), instead of in front of the body, can be expected to reduce low-back load. Twelve healthy young men lifted 10 and 20-kg wide and narrow loads in front of the body (the single-load lifts). These single-load lifts were compared to a lifting condition in which two 10-kg loads (a total of 20 kg) were lifted beside the body (the split-load lift). Lifts were performed from an initial hand height of 29 cm with four different lifting techniques (stoop, squat, straddle and kneeling techniques). Using measured kinematics, ground reaction forces, and electromyography, low-back loading (3D net moments and spinal forces at the L5/S1 joint) was estimated. Lifting a 20-kg split-load instead of a 20-kg single-load resulted in most cases in a reduction (8-32%) of peak L5/S1 compression forces. The magnitude of the reduction was roughly comparable to halving the load mass and depended on lifting technique and load width. The effects of load-splitting could largely be explained by changes in horizontal distance between the load and L5/S1.

The effects of ergonomic interventions on low back moments are attenuated by changes in lifting behaviour

This study investigated the effects of ergonomic interventions involving a reduction of the mass (from 16 to 11 and 6 kg) and an increase in the initial lifting height (from pallet height to 90 cm above the ground) of building blocks in a mock-up of an industrial depalletizing task, investigating lifting behaviour as well as low back moments (calculated using a 3-D linked segment model). Nine experienced construction workers participated in the experiment, in which they removed building blocks from a pallet in the way they normally did during their work. Most of the changes in lifting behaviour that were found would attenuate the effect of the investigated interventions on low back moments. When block mass was reduced from 16 to 6 kg, subjects chose to lift the building block from a 10 (SD 10) cm greater distance from the front edge of the pallet and with a 100 (SD 66) degrees/s2 higher trunk angular acceleration. When initial lifting height was increased, subjects chose to shift the building blocks less before actually lifting them, resulting in a 10.7 (SD 10) cm increase in horizontal distance of the building blocks relative to the body at the instant of peak net total moment. Despite these changes in lifting behaviour, the investigated ergonomic interventions still reduced the net total low back moment (by 4.9 (SD 2.0) Nm/kg when block mass was reduced and 53.6 (SD 41.0) Nm when initial lifting height was increased).

Effect of block weight on work demands and physical workload during masonry work

The effect of block weight on work demands and physical workload was determined for masons who laid sandstone building blocks over the course of a full work day. Three groups of five sandstone block masons participated. Each group worked with a different block weight: 11 kg, 14 kg or 16 kg. Productivity and durations of tasks and activities were assessed through real time observations at the work site. Energetic workload was also assessed through monitoring the heart rate and oxygen consumption at the work site. Spinal load of the low back was estimated by calculating the cumulated elastic energy stored in the lumbar spine using durations of activities and previous data on corresponding compression forces. Block weight had no effect on productivity, duration or frequency of tasks and activities, energetic workload or cumulative spinal load. Working with any of the block weights exceeded exposure guidelines for work demands and physical workload. This implies that, regardless of block weight in the range of 11 to 16 kg, mechanical lifting equipment or devices to adjust work height should be implemented to substantially lower the risk of low back injuries.

Upper extremity kinematic and kinetic adaptations during a fatiguing repetitive task

Repetitive low-force contractions are common in the workplace and yet can lead to muscle fatigue and work-related musculoskeletal disorders. The current study aimed to investigate potential motion adaptations during a simulated repetitive light assembly work task designed to fatigue the shoulder region, focusing on changes over time and age-related group differences. Ten younger and ten older participants performed four 20-min task sessions separated by short breaks. Mean and variability of joint angles and scapular elevation, joint net moments for the shoulder, elbow, and wrist were calculated from upper extremity kinematics recorded by a motion tracking system. Results showed that joint angle and joint torque decreased across sessions and across multiple joints and segments. Increased kinematic variability over time was observed in the shoulder joint; however, decreased kinematic variability over time was seen in the more distal part of the upper limb. The changes of motion adaptations were sensitive to the task-break schedule. The results suggested that kinematic and kinetic adaptations occurred to reduce the biomechanical loading on the fatigued shoulder region. In addition, the kinematic and kinetic responses at the elbow and wrist joints also changed, possibly to compensate for the increased variability caused by the shoulder joint while still maintaining task requirements. These motion strategies in responses to muscle fatigue were similar between two age groups although the older group showed more effort in adaptation than the younger in terms of magnitude and affected body parts.

The validity and interrater reliability of video-based posture observation during asymmetric lifting tasks.

Objective: The objective was to evaluate the validity and interrater reliability of a video-based posture observation method for the major body segment angles during asymmetric lifting tasks. Background: Observational methods have been widely used as an awkward-posture assessment tool for ergonomics studies. Previous research proposed a video-based posture observation method with estimation of major segment angles during lifting tasks. However, it was limited to symmetric lifting tasks. The current study extended this method to asymmetric lifting tasks and investigated the validity and the interrater reliability. Method: Various asymmetric lifting tasks were performed in a laboratory while a side-view video camera recorded the lift, and the body segment angles were measured directly by a motion tracking system. For this study, 10 raters estimated seven major segment angles using a customized program that played back the video recording, thus allowing users to enter segment angles. The validity of estimated segment angles was evaluated in relation to measured segment angles. Interrater reliability was assessed among the raters. Results: For all the segment angles except trunk lateral bending, the estimated segment angles were strongly correlated with the measured segment angles (r > .8), and the intraclass correlation coefficient was greater than 0.75. Conclusion: The proposed observational method was able to provide a robust estimation of major segment angles for asymmetric lifting tasks based on side-view video clips. The estimated segment angles were consistent among raters. Application: This method can be used for assessing posture during asymmetric lifting tasks. It also supports developing a video-based rapid joint loading estimation method.