Discriminability of load heaviness: implications for the psychophysical approach to manual lifting.

The main objective of this study was to investigate human ability to discriminate between different levels of load heaviness in manual lifting. Twelve male college students participated in the laboratory experiment. Twenty-eight sequences of five boxes that weighed from 5 to 64 lbs (2.27-29.1 kg) were used. The subjects were asked to arrange boxes in each sequence in order of the perceived (increasing or decreasing) heaviness, i.e., from lightest to the heaviest box, or from heaviest to the lightest box. The subjects were also asked to assign linguistic descriptors of perceived load heaviness to each box in the sequence, and to indicate the confidence levels regarding correctness of the assigned box order and assignment of linguistic values. The independent variables included magnitude of weight and load differential between the successive weights in a sequence. The number of sequential ordering errors, assignment of linguistic variables, and estimated confidence levels were highly dependent on the load differential and weight range. It was concluded that in order to assure reliable results of the psychophysical approach to determining the values of maximum acceptable weight of lift, the adjustment process for male subjects should require using small weights of at least 4 lbs (1.8 kg) to be added or removed from the lifted box. The results of this study also suggest that the error rate in load discriminability can be controlled below the 10% level, if the relative difference in weight between successive boxes lifted is at least 12%. Given the above findings, it is suggested that usefulness of some of the recommendations for setting safe limits for manual lifting tasks, which were reached based on the psychophysical approach and broadly reported in the past, may need to be carefully re-examined. Finally, this study showed that the Weber fraction for load heaviness over the range of lifted weights from 8.6 to 29.1 kg is between 0.03 and 0.04.

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

[2]  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.

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

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

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

[6]  A Garg,et al.  An evaluation of the NIOSH guidelines for manual lifting, with special reference to horizontal distance. , 1989, American Industrial Hygiene Association journal.

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

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

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

[10]  J. D. G. Troup,et al.  Ratings of acceptable load and maximal isometric lifting strengths: the effects of repetition , 1984 .

[11]  F Gamberale,et al.  The perception of exertion. , 1985, Ergonomics.

[12]  Mao-Jiun J. Wang,et al.  A method for determining the difference threshold of judging weight difference in material handling , 1991 .

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

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

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

[16]  J. Pytel,et al.  Dynamic strength test as a predictor for maximal and acceptable lifting , 1981 .

[17]  W. Karwowski,et al.  Weight Discriminability and Subjective Assessment of Load Heaviness: A Pilot Study , 1989 .

[18]  A Mital,et al.  Psychophysical models for manual lifting tasks. , 1990, Applied ergonomics.

[19]  Ernst Heinrich Weber,et al.  De pulsu, resorptione, auditu et tactu. Annotationes anatomicae et physiologicae , 1834 .

[20]  M. M. Ayoub,et al.  Fuzzy modelling of stresses in manual lifting tasks. , 1984, Ergonomics.

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

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

[23]  S H Snook,et al.  Psychophysical considerations in permissible loads. , 1985, Ergonomics.

[24]  I. John.  Psychopysical hysteresis in judgements of lifted weights , 1972 .

[25]  C G Drury,et al.  Discriminability of large weights. , 1977, Ergonomics.

[26]  J D Millar,et al.  Summary of "Proposed national strategies for the prevention of leading work-related diseases and injuries, Part 1". , 2010, American journal of industrial medicine.

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

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

[29]  R. Teghtsoonian,et al.  On the exponents in Stevens' law and the constant in Ekman's law. , 1971, Psychological review.

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

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

[32]  W. Bevan,et al.  The Newhall scaling method, psychophysical bowing, and adaptation level. , 1963, The Journal of general psychology.