Upper Body Postural Analysis in Sitting Workplace Environment Using Microsoft Kinect V2 Sensor

  • Vibha BhatiaEmail author
  • Parveen Kalra
  • Jagjit Singh Randhawa
Conference paper
Part of the Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies book series (SIST, volume 135)


Human postural analysis is paramount to ergonomic assessment of human-workplace systems. Traditionally, motion tracking systems are being used to assess human joint kinematics in laboratory environment. Motion tracking systems with marker technology make the measurements cumbersome and limit the area of scope to constrained environments. In the present work, cheap, marker less, calibration-free, portable system using Microsoft Kinect sensor was scrutinized for its viability on human body kinematic analysis. Kinect V2 (more accurate and technologically better than Kinect V1) sensor was used to examine the body postural data of 15 participants doing a sitting job. Most of the studies are being done by placing Kinect sensor in front of the body due to occlusions. Efforts were made to assess the human body posture using side view data by placing the Kinect sensor parallel to sagittal plane of human body. Parameters like joint angles were recorded and were analyzed ergonomically for all the participants. The result of the study suggests the possible use of infrared cameras like Kinect to have some insight on human upper body ergonomic assessment in workplace environment. Relevance to Industry: The results obtained from the study can help the ergonomists and concerned technicians to set up better ergonomic assessment tools for workplace. The possible stakeholders of the current study are people working in offices, IT companies, call centres, accounting and analytical tasks, clerical works and all kind of sitting jobs.


Kinect Musculoskeletal disorders Ergonomics LabView Posture Body angles 


  1. 1.
    Evans, R.E., Fawole, H.O., Sheriff, S.A., Dall, P.M., Grant, P.M., Ryan, C.G.: Point-of-choice prompts to reduce sitting time at work: a randomized trial. Am. J. Prev. Med. 43, 293–297 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Thorp, A.A., Healy, G.N., Winkler, E., Clark, B.K., Gardiner, P.A., Owen, N., Dunstan, D.W.: Prolonged sedentary time and physical activity in workplace and non-work contexts: a cross-sectional study of office, customer service and call centre employees. Int J Behav Nutr Phy. 9, 128 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Waersted, M., Hanvoold, T.N., Veierdted, K.B.: Computer work and musculoskeletal disorders of the neck and upper extremity: a systematic review. Bmc Musculoskelet. Disord. 11(1), 79 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Collins, J.D., O’Sullivan, L.W.: Musculoskeletal disorder prevalence and psychosocial risk exposures by age and gender in a cohort of office based employees in two academic instituitions. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 46, 85–97 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Winkel, J., Jorgensen, K.: Evaluation of foot swelling and lower-limb temperatures in relation to leg activity during long-term seated office work. Ergonomics 29, 313–328 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Naqvi, S.A.: Study of forward sloping seats for VDT workstations. J. Hum. Ergol. 23, 41–49 (1994)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Viera, E.R., Kumar, S.: Working postures: a literature review. J. Occup. Rehabil. 14(2), 143–159 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    David, G.C.: Ergonomic methods for assessing exposure to risk factors for work-related musculoskeletal disorders. Occup. Med. 55(3), 190–199 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Li, G., Buckle, P.: Current techniques for assessing physical exposure to work-related musculoskeletal risks, with emphasis on posture-based methods. Ergonomics 42(5), 674–694 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Burdorf, A., Laan, J.: Comparison of methods for the assessment of postural load on the back. Scand. J. Work Environ. Health 17, 425–429 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wiktorin, C., Karlqvist, L., Winkel, J.: Validity of self-reported exposures to work postures and manual material handling. Scand. J. Work Environ. Health. 19, 208–214 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mc Atamney, L., Corlett, E.N.: RULA: a survey methods for the investigation of work-related upper limn disorders. Appl. Ergon. 24(2), 91–99 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fagarasanu, M., Kumar, S.: Measurement instruments and data collection: a consideration of conducts and biases in ergonomics research. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 30, 355–369 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Burdorf, A., Derksen, J., Naaktgeboren, B., VanRiel, M.: Measurement of trunk bending during work by direct observation and continuous measurement. Appl. Ergon. 23(4), 263–267 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bruno, J.L., Li, Z., Trudeau, M., Raina, S.M., Dennerlein, J.T.: A single video camera postural assessment system to measure rotation of the shoulder during computer use. J. Appl. Biomech. 28, 343–348 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Manghisi, V.M., et al.: Real time RULA assessment using kinect v2 sensor. Appl. Ergon. 65, 481–491 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lun, R., Zhao, W. (2015). A survey of applications and human motion recognition with microsoft kinect. Electr. Eng. Comput. Sci. Fac. Publ. 408Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wei, T., Lee, B., Qiao, Y., Kitsikidis, A., Dimitropoulos, K., Grammalidis, N.: Experimental study of skeleton tracking abilities from microsoft kinect non-frontal views. 2015 3DTV-conference: the true vision—capture, transmission and display of 3D Video (3DTV-CON). Lisbon 2015, 1–4 (2015)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Choppin, S., Lane, B., Wheat, J.: The accuracy of the microsoft kinect in joint angle measurement. Sports Technol. 7(1–2), 98–105 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Moya, S. et al.: Mapping joint ROM on a cube using electromagnetic trackers. In: First International Symposium on Digital Human Modeling. (2011)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pfister, A., West, A.M., Bronner, S., Noah, J.A.: Comparative abilities of microsoft kinect and vicon 3D motion capture for gait analysis. J. Med. Eng. Technol. 38, 274–280 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Dutta, T.: Evaluation of the kinect sensor for 3-D kinematic measurement in the workplace. Appl. Ergon. 43, 645–649 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Van Wyk, P.M., Weir, P.L., Andrews, D.M., Fiedler, K.M., Callaghan, J.P.: Determining the optimal size for posture categories used in video-based posture assessment methods. Ergonomics 52, 921–930 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vibha Bhatia
    • 1
    Email author
  • Parveen Kalra
    • 1
  • Jagjit Singh Randhawa
    • 1
  1. 1.Punjab Engineering CollegeChandigarhIndia

Personalised recommendations