How Age and Pace of Work Affect Movement Variability During Repetitive Assembly Tasks

  • Martine A. GillesEmail author
  • Clarisse Gaudez
  • Jonathan Savin
  • Aurélie Remy
  • Olivier Remy
  • Pascal Wild
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 826)


During production, companies aim to ensure optimal productivity and quality. With this in mind, workstation designers tend to assume that operators will perform tasks in a uniform manner, and tend not to include movement variability parameters in their designs. The aim of this study was to characterise movement variability during repetitive assembly tasks performed at a defined pace. 62 right-handed men in three different age groups were asked to affix a handle on a base with two nuts at two different paces. Particular attention was paid to how two factors influenced movement variability: the operator’s and the pace of work. Variability was observed in assembly way of doing when the procedure was not imposed. The variability observed during assembly, as performed for this study, was unaffected by operators’ age or the pace of work. No effect of variability was observed on the duration of assembly cycles, nor on the adaptation to changes in pace. In contrast, variability allowed operators alternatives to repetitive movement which could potentially exert strain on the locomotor system. Allowing operators the possibility to spontaneously use variable movements during repetitive tasks appears to be an important element to consider when designing workstations.


Movement variability Repetitive task Age 


  1. 1.
    Berthoz A (1997) Le sens du mouvement. Odile Jacob (Eds), ParisGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Glazier PS, Wheat JS, Pease DL, Bartlett R (2006) Dynamic system theory and the functional role of movement variability. In: Davids K, Bennett S, Newell K (eds) Movement system variability. Human Kinetics Publishers, Champaign (IL), pp 49–72Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Diniz A, Wijnants ML, Torre K, Barreiros J, Crato N, Bosman AM, Hasselman F, Cox RF, Van Orden GC, Delignières D (2011) Contemporary theories of 1/f noise in motor control. Hum Mov Sci 30(5):889–905CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Latash ML, Scholz JP, Schröner G (2002) Motor control strategies revealed in the structure of motor variability. Exerc Sport Sci Rev 30(1):26–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jackson JA, Mathiassen SE, Dempsey PG (2009) Methodological variance associated with normalization of occupational upper trapezius EMG using sub-maximal reference contractions. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 19(3):416–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Madeleine P, Lundager B, Voigt M, Arendt-Nielsen L (2003) The effects of neck-shoulder pain development on sensory-motor interactions among female workers in the poultry and fish industries. a prospective study. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 76(1):39–49Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Madeleine P, Lundager B, Voigt M, Arendt-Nielsen L (2003) Standardized low-load repetitive work: evidence of different motor control strategies between experienced workers and a reference group. Appl Ergon 34(6):533–542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mathiassen SE, Burdorf A, Van der Beek AJ (2002) Statistical power and measurement allocation in ergonomic intervention studies assessing upper trapezius EMG amplitude. a case study of assembly work. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 12(1):45–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mathiassen SE, Möller T, Forsman M (2003) Variability in mechanical exposure within and between individuals performing a highly constrained industrial work task. Ergonomics 46(3):800–824CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Terrier P, Schutz Y (2003) Variability of gait patterns during unconstrained walking assessed by satellite positioning (GPS). Eur J Appl Physiol 90(5–6):554–561CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Svendsen JH, Madeleine P (2010) Amount and structure of force variability during short, ramp and sustained contractions in males and females. Hum Mov Sci 29(1):35–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Madeleine P, Voigt M, Mathiassen SE (2008) The size of cycle-to-cycle variability in biomechanical exposure among butchers performing a standardised cutting task. Ergonomics 51(7):1078–1095CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Martine A. Gilles
    • 1
    Email author
  • Clarisse Gaudez
    • 1
  • Jonathan Savin
    • 1
  • Aurélie Remy
    • 1
  • Olivier Remy
    • 1
  • Pascal Wild
    • 1
  1. 1.INRS LorraineVandœuvre CedexFrance

Personalised recommendations