Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Comparison of Sensor Placement for Estimating Trunk Postures in Manual Material Handling

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Proceedings of the 20th Congress of the International Ergonomics Association (IEA 2018) (IEA 2018)

Part of the book series: Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing ((AISC,volume 819))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

Wearable measurement systems have become increasingly more popular in estimating exposures to awkward trunk postures. One limitation in using these systems is the lack of research confirming the optimal placement of the sensors for accurate quantification of trunk postures. The present study explored the effect of sensor placement in estimating trunk postures using XsensTM (Xsens Technologies, NL) during simulated manual material handling tasks in the laboratory. The researchers found a single IMU on the sternum estimated summary measures and percent time in trunk posture categories similarly to the reference method placement.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Ã…kesson I, Hansson GÃ…, Balogh I, Moritz U, Skerfving S (1997) Quantifying work load in neck, shoulders and wrists in female dentists. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 69(6):461–474

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andersen JH, Haahr JP, Frost P (2007) Risk factors for more severe regional musculoskeletal symptoms: a two-year prospective study of a general working population. Arthritis Rheumatol 56(4):1355–1364

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balogh I, Ohlsson K, Hansson GÃ…, Engström T, Skerfving S (2006) Increasing the degree of automation in a production system: consequences for the physical workload. Int J Ind Ergon 36(4):353–365

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bao S, Mathiassen SE, Winkel J (1996) Ergonomic effects of a management-based rationalization in assembly work—a case study. Appl Ergon 27(2):89–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bauer CM, Rast FM, Ernst MJ, Kool J, Oetiker S, Rissanen SM, Kankaanpää M (2015) Concurrent validity and reliability of a novel wireless inertial measurement system to assess trunk movement. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 25(5):782–790

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • California Department of Industrial Relations (CDIR) (2007) Ergonomic guidelines for manual materials handling (NIOSH Publication No. 2007-131). U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), Center of Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Health and Safety, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Chaffin D, Heidl R, Hollenbeck JR, Howe M, Yu A, Voorhees C, Calantone R (2017) The promise and perils of wearable sensors in organizational research. Organ Res Methods 20(1):3–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coenen P, Kingma I, Boot CR, Twisk JW, Bongers PM, van Dieën JH (2013) Cumulative low back load at work as a risk factor of low back pain: a prospective cohort study. J Occup Rehabil 23(1):11–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • da Costa BR, Vieira ER (2010) Risk factors for work-related musculoskeletal disorders: a systematic review of recent longitudinal studies. Am J Ind Med 53(3):285–323

    Google Scholar 

  • Driel RV, Trask C, Johnson PW, Callaghan JP, Koehoorn M, Teschke K (2013) Anthropometry-corrected exposure modeling as a method to improve trunk posture assessment with a single inclinometer. J Occup Environ Hyg 10(3):143–154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faber GS, Kingma I, Bruijn SM, van Dieën JH (2009) Optimal inertial sensor location for ambulatory measurement of trunk inclination. J Biomech 42(14), 2406–2409. 41(Suppl 1), 5527–5528

    Google Scholar 

  • Feito Y, Bassett DR, Tyo B, Thompson DL (2011) Effects of body mass index and tilt angle on output of two wearable activity monitors. Med Sci Sports Exerc 43(5):861–866

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fethke NB, Gant LC, Gerr F (2011) Comparison of biomechanical loading during use of conventional stud welding equipment and an alternate system. Appl Ergon 42(5):725–734

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foerster F, Smeja M, Fahrenberg J (1999) Detection of posture and motion by accelerometry: a validation study in ambulatory monitoring. Comput Hum Behav 15(5):571–583

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forsman M, Hansson GÃ…, Medbo L, Asterland P, Engström T (2002) A method for evaluation of manual work using synchronised video recordings and physiological measurements. Appl Ergon 33(6):533–540

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gemperle F, Kasabach C, Stivoric J, Bauer M, Martin R (1998) Design for wearability. In: Second International Symposium on Wearable Computers, 1998. Digest of Papers. IEEE, pp 116–122

    Google Scholar 

  • Godwin A, Agnew M, Stevenson J (2009) Accuracy of inertial motion sensors in static, quasi-static, and complex dynamic motion. J Biomech Eng 131(11):114501

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham RB, Agnew MJ, Stevenson JM (2009) Effectiveness of an on-body lifting aid at reducing low back physical demands during an automotive assembly task: assessment of EMG response and user acceptability. Appl Ergon 40(5):936–942

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansson GÃ…, Balogh I, Ohlsson K, Granqvist L, Nordander C, Arvidsson I, Skerfving S (2010) Physical workload in various types of work: Part II. Neck, shoulder and upper arm. Int J Ind Ergon 40(3):267–281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoogendoorn WE, Bongers PM, de Vet HC, Douwes M, Koes BW, Miedema MC, Bouter LM (2000) Flexion and rotation of the trunk and lifting at work are risk factors for low back pain: results of a prospective cohort study. Spine 25(23):3087–3092

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howarth SJ, Grondin DE, La Delfa NJ, Cox J, Potvin JR (2016) Working position influences the biomechanical demands on the lower back during dental hygiene. Ergonomics 59(4):545–555

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonker D, Rolander B, Balogh I (2009) Relation between perceived and measured workload obtained by long-term inclinometry among dentists. Appl Ergon 40(3):309–315

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonsson B (1978) Kinesiology: with special reference to electromyographic kinesiology. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol Suppl 34:417–428

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonsson B (1988) The static load component in muscle work. Eur J Appl Physiol 57(3):305–310

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kazmierczak K, Mathiassen SE, Forsman M, Winkel J (2005) An integrated analysis of ergonomics and time consumption in Swedish ‘craft-type’car disassembly. Appl Ergon 36(3):263–273

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim S, Nussbaum MA (2013) Performance evaluation of a wearable inertial motion capture system for capturing physical exposures during manual material handling tasks. Ergonomics 56(2):314–326

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Korshøj M, Skotte JH, Christiansen CS, Mortensen P, Kristiansen J, Hanisch C, Holtermann A (2014) Validity of the Acti4 software using ActiGraph GT3X+ accelerometer for recording of arm and upper body inclination in simulated work tasks. Ergonomics 57(2):247–253

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee W, Seto E, Lin KY, Migliaccio GC (2017) An evaluation of wearable measurement systems and their placements for analyzing construction worker’s trunk posture in laboratory conditions. Appl Ergon 65:424–436

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marklin RW, Cherney K (2005) Working postures of dentists and dental hygienists. J Calif Dent Assoc 33:133–136

    Google Scholar 

  • Marras WS, Lavender SA, Leurgans SE, Fathallah FA, Ferguson SA, Gary-Allread W, Rajulu SL (1995) Biomechanical risk factors for occupationally related low back disorders. Ergonomics 38(2):377–410

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marras WS, Cutlip RG, Burt SE, Waters TR (2009) National occupational research agenda (NORA) future directions in occupational musculoskeletal disorder health research. Appl Ergon 40(1):15–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marras WS, Lavender SA, Ferguson SA, Splittstoesser RE, Yang G (2010) Quantitative dynamic measures of physical exposure predict low back functional impairment. Spine 35(8):914–923

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Institute for Occupational Health and Safety (NIOSH) (2016) Exposure Assessment. https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/programs/expa/. Accessed Aug 2017

  • National Research Council (NRC) (2001) Musculoskeletal disorders and the workplace: low back and upper extremities. National Academies Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Plamondon A, Delisle A, Larue C, Brouillette D, McFadden D, Desjardins P, Larivière C (2007) Evaluation of a hybrid system for three-dimensional measurement of trunk posture in motion. Appl Ergon 38(6):697–712

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Punnett L, Fine LJ, Keyserling WM, Herrin GD, Chaffin DB (1991) Back disorders and non-neutral trunk postures of automobile assembly workers. Scand J Work Environ Health 17:337–346

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Punnett L, Wegman DH (2004) Work-related musculoskeletal disorders: the epidemiologic evidence and the debate. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 14(1):13–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Putz-Anderson V, Bernard B (1997) Musculoskeletal disorders and workplace factors: a critical review of epidemiologic evidence for work-related musculoskeletal disorders of the neck, upper extremity, and low back. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, (Second, vol. 97–141), Cincinnati

    Google Scholar 

  • Robert-Lachaine X, Mecheri H, Larue C, Plamondon A (2016) Validation of inertial measurement units with an optoelectronic system for whole-body motion analysis. Med Biol Eng Comput 55:1–11

    Google Scholar 

  • Roetenberg D, Luinge H, Slycke P (2009) Xsens MVN: full 6DOF human motion tracking using miniature inertial sensors. Xsens Motion Technologies BV, Technical report

    Google Scholar 

  • Salas E, Vi P, Reider V, Moore A (2016) Factors affecting the risk of developing lower back musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) in experienced and inexperienced rodworkers. Appl Ergon 52:62–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sazonov ES, Fulk G, Hill J, Schutz Y, Browning R (2011) Monitoring of posture allocations and activities by a shoe-based wearable sensor. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 58(4):983–990

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schall MC, Fethke NB, Chen H, Gerr F (2015a) A comparison of instrumentation methods to estimate thoracolumbar motion in field-based occupational studies. Appl Ergon 48:224–231

    Google Scholar 

  • Schall Jr, MC, Chen H, Fethke N (2015b) Comparing fatigue, physical activity, and posture among nurses in two staffing models. In: Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting, vol 59, no 1. SAGE Publications, Los Angeles, pp 1269–1273

    Google Scholar 

  • Schall MC, Fethke NB, Chen H, Oyama S, Douphrate DI (2016) Accuracy and repeatability of an inertial measurement unit system for field-based occupational studies. Ergonomics 59(4):591–602

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schepers HM, Roetenberg D, Veltink PH (2010) Ambulatory human motion tracking by fusion of inertial and magnetic sensing with adaptive actuation. Med Biol Eng Compu 48(1):27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor R (1990) Interpretation of the correlation coefficient: a basic review. J Diagn Med Sonogr 6(1):35–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Unge J, Ohlsson K, Nordander C, Hansson GÃ…, Skerfving S, Balogh I (2007) Differences in physical workload, psychosocial factors and musculoskeletal disorders between two groups of female hospital cleaners with two diverse organizational models. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 81(2):209–220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Driel R, Teschke K, Callaghan JP, Trask C, Koehoorn M, Johnson PW (2009) A comparison of trunk posture movements: a motion capture system and a new data-logging inclinometer. In: IEA 2009, 17th World Conference on Ergonomics, Beijing, China

    Google Scholar 

  • Vasseljen O, Westgaard RH (1997) Arm and trunk posture during work in relation to shoulder and neck pain and trapezius activity. Clin Biomech 12(1):22–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Villumsen M, Samani A, Jørgensen MB, Gupta N, Madeleine P, Holtermann A (2015) Are forward bending of the trunk and low back pain associated among Danish blue-collar workers? A cross-sectional field study based on objective measures. Ergonomics 58(2):246–258

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wahlström J, Mathiassen SE, Liv P, Hedlund P, Ahlgren C, Forsman M (2010) Upper arm postures and movements in female hairdressers across four full working days. Ann Occup Hyg 54(5):584–594

    Google Scholar 

  • Wai EK, Roffey DM, Bishop P, Kwon BK, Dagenais S (2010) Causal assessment of occupational bending or twisting and low back pain: results of a systematic review. Spine J 10(1):76–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wong WY, Wong MS (2008) Trunk posture monitoring with inertial sensors. Eur Spine J 17(5):743–753

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wong WY, Wong MS (2009) Measurement of postural change in trunk movements using three sensor modules. IEEE Trans Instrum Meas 58(8):2737–2742

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xsens Technologies B.V. (2015) MVN User Manual. Enschede, Netherlands

    Google Scholar 

  • Yan X, Li H, Li AR, Zhang H (2017) Wearable IMU-based real-time motion warning system for construction workers’ musculoskeletal disorders prevention. Autom Constr 74:2–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, 80523, USA

    Molly Hischke, Gus Arroyo, Raoul F. Reiser II & John Rosecrance

Authors
  1. Molly Hischke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gus Arroyo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Raoul F. Reiser II
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. John Rosecrance
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Molly Hischke .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of the Republic of San Marino, San Marino, San Marino

    Sebastiano Bagnara

  2. Centre for Clinical Risk Management and Patient Safety, Tuscany Region, Florence, Italy

    Riccardo Tartaglia

  3. Centre for Clinical Risk Management and Patient Safety, Tuscany Region, Florence, Italy

    Sara Albolino

  4. Fraunhofer FKIE, Bonn, Nordrhein-Westfalen, Germany

    Thomas Alexander

  5. International Ergonomics Association, Tokyo, Japan

    Yushi Fujita

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Hischke, M., Arroyo, G., Reiser, R.F., Rosecrance, J. (2019). A Comparison of Sensor Placement for Estimating Trunk Postures in Manual Material Handling. In: Bagnara, S., Tartaglia, R., Albolino, S., Alexander, T., Fujita, Y. (eds) Proceedings of the 20th Congress of the International Ergonomics Association (IEA 2018). IEA 2018. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, vol 819. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96089-0_9

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation