Beyond psychophysics: the need for a cognitive engineering approach to setting limits in manual lifting tasks.

The classical psychophysical approach to setting limits in manual lifting tasks is discussed in view of experimental procedures used, non-linearity of human perception of load heaviness, and the related experimental outcomes. The results of two studies investigating the human assessment of load acceptability and safety are presented. The first study compares the classical concept of the maximum acceptable weight of lift (MAWL) to the alternative concept of the maximum safe weight of lift (MSWL). The second study utilizes the linguistic magnitude estimation (LME) method to mathematically model human assessment of four categories of lifted loads, including the concepts of acceptable, safe, not-too-heavy, and too-heavy loads for continuous lifting. It is shown that the concepts of the lifted load acceptability and safety are non-linear, and can be modelled with great accuracy using the third degree polynomials. This study also introduces and investigates the concept of the load indifference in assessment of load heaviness, and shows that lack of a cognitive benchmark introduces inconsistency in subjects' perception of load acceptability and safety compared to the concept of too-heavy load for continuous lifting. It is concluded that a new research approach to manual lifting tasks based on cognitive engineering is needed to improve the quality of research methodologies currently utilized in this field. This unexplored area of research should lead to greater understanding of human capacities and limitations in manual lifting tasks in the context of cultural and linguistic anthropology.

[1]  D B Chaffin,et al.  Postural effects on biomechanical and psychophysical weight-lifting limits. , 1994, Ergonomics.

[2]  M. Shansky,et al.  Influence of hue, value, and chroma on the perceived heaviness of colors , 1976 .

[3]  A Garg,et al.  Revised NIOSH equation for the design and evaluation of manual lifting tasks. , 1993, Ergonomics.

[4]  G. Borg.  Psychophysical scaling with applications in physical work and the perception of exertion. , 1990, Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health.

[5]  A Kilbom,et al.  An experimental evaluation of psychophysical criteria for repetitive lifting work. , 1987, Applied ergonomics.

[6]  S. Snook,et al.  A study of three preventive approaches to low back injury. , 1978, Journal of occupational medicine. : official publication of the Industrial Medical Association.

[7]  Ciriello Vm,et al.  The effects of task duration on psychophysically-determined maximum acceptable weights and forces , 1990 .

[8]  A. Mital.  The Psychophysical Approach in Manual Lifting---A Verification Study , 1983, Human factors.

[9]  Anil Mital,et al.  Review, Evaluation, and Comparison of Models for Predicting Lifting Capacity , 1980 .

[10]  S. S. Stevens.  The Psychophysics of Sensory Function. , 1960 .

[11]  W Karwowski,et al.  Psychophysical acceptability and perception of load heaviness by females. , 1991, Ergonomics.

[12]  S. S. Stevens.  On the psychophysical law. , 1957, Psychological review.

[13]  A Kilbom,et al.  Horizontal lifting--physiological and psychological responses. , 1982, Ergonomics.

[14]  W Karwowski,et al.  Reliability of the psychophysical approach to manual lifting of liquids by females. , 1986, Ergonomics.

[15]  S H Snook,et al.  Psychophysical acceptability as a constraint in manual working capacity. , 1985, Ergonomics.

[16]  G D Herrin,et al.  Prediction of overexertion injuries using biomechanical and psychophysical models. , 1986, American Industrial Hygiene Association journal.

[17]  M. M. Ayoub,et al.  A Job Severity Index for the Evaluation and Control of Lifting Injury , 1984, Human factors.

[18]  S H Snook,et al.  The design of manual handling tasks: revised tables of maximum acceptable weights and forces. , 1991, Ergonomics.

[19]  J. Troup,et al.  1987 Volvo Award in Clinical Sciences: The Perception of Back Pain and the Role of Psychophysical Tests of Lifting Capacity , 1987, Spine.

[20]  J D Troup,et al.  A psychophysical study of heaviness for box lifting and lowering. , 1986, Ergonomics.

[21]  Lawrence M. Ward,et al.  Response system processes in absolute judgment , 1971 .

[22]  S H Snook,et al.  A Study of Size, Distance, Height, and Frequency Effects on Manual Handling Tasks , 1983, Human factors.

[23]  W Karwowski,et al.  Discriminability of load heaviness: implications for the psychophysical approach to manual lifting. , 1992, Ergonomics.

[24]  G. Lockhead,et al.  Sequential effects in absolute judgments of loudness , 1968 .

[25]  Stover H. Snook,et al.  The Ergonomics Society The Society's Lecture 1978. THE DESIGN OF MANUAL HANDLING TASKS , 1978 .

[26]  S J Legg,et al.  Metabolic and cardiovascular cost, and perceived effort over an 8 hour day when lifting loads selected by the psychophysical method. , 1985, Ergonomics.

[27]  S H Snook,et al.  Psychophysical Studies of Physiological Fatigue Criteria1 , 1969, Human factors.

[28]  D B Chaffin,et al.  Ergonomics guide for the assessment of human static strength. , 1975, American Industrial Hygiene Association journal.

[29]  S. Snook,et al.  Maximum acceptable weight of lift. , 1967, American Industrial Hygiene Association journal.