Evaluation of In-Cloth versus On-Skin Sensors for Measuring Trunk and Upper Arm Postures and Movements

Smart workwear systems with embedded inertial measurement unit sensors are developed for convenient ergonomic risk assessment of occupational activities. However, its measurement accuracy can be affected by potential cloth artifacts, which have not been previously assessed. Therefore, it is crucial to evaluate the accuracy of sensors placed in the workwear systems for research and practice purposes. This study aimed to compare in-cloth and on-skin sensors for assessing upper arms and trunk postures and movements, with the on-skin sensors as the reference. Five simulated work tasks were performed by twelve subjects (seven women and five men). Results showed that the mean (±SD) absolute cloth–skin sensor differences of the median dominant arm elevation angle ranged between 1.2° (±1.4) and 4.1° (±3.5). For the median trunk flexion angle, the mean absolute cloth–skin sensor differences ranged between 2.7° (±1.7) and 3.7° (±3.9). Larger errors were observed for the 90th and 95th percentiles of inclination angles and inclination velocities. The performance depended on the tasks and was affected by individual factors, such as the fit of the clothes. Potential error compensation algorithms need to be investigated in future work. In conclusion, in-cloth sensors showed acceptable accuracy for measuring upper arm and trunk postures and movements on a group level. Considering the balance of accuracy, comfort, and usability, such a system can potentially be a practical tool for ergonomic assessment for researchers and practitioners.

[1]  E. Digo,et al.  A Narrative Review on Wearable Inertial Sensors for Human Motion Tracking in Industrial Scenarios , 2022, Robotics.

[2]  M. Forsman,et al.  Mind the gap - development of conversion models between accelerometer- and IMU-based measurements of arm and trunk postures and movements in warehouse work. , 2022, Applied ergonomics.

[3]  M. Forsman,et al.  Does occupational forward bending of the back increase long-term sickness absence risk? A 4-year prospective register-based study using device-measured compositional data analysis. , 2022, Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health.

[4]  D. Stricker,et al.  Towards Artefact Aware Human Motion Capture using Inertial Sensors Integrated into Loose Clothing , 2022, 2022 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA).

[5]  Liyun Yang,et al.  Evaluation of a New Simplified Inertial Sensor Method against Electrogoniometer for Measuring Wrist Motion in Occupational Studies , 2022, Sensors.

[6]  K. Søgaard,et al.  How does accelerometry-measured arm elevation at work influence prospective risk of long-term sickness absence? , 2021, Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health.

[7]  Gerard A. Davis,et al.  Manufacturing worker perceptions of using wearable inertial sensors for multiple work shifts. , 2021, Applied ergonomics.

[8]  Mikael Forsman,et al.  Effects of Sensor Types and Angular Velocity Computational Methods in Field Measurements of Occupational Upper Arm and Trunk Postures and Movements , 2021, Sensors.

[9]  Henrik Enquist,et al.  Action Levels for the Prevention of Work-Related Musculoskeletal Disorders in the Neck and Upper Extremities: A Proposal , 2021, Annals of work exposures and health.

[10]  M. Frings-Dresen,et al.  The prevalence of occupational exposure to ergonomic risk factors: A systematic review and meta-analysis from the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates of the Work-related Burden of Disease and Injury. , 2021, Environment international.

[11]  Howard Chen,et al.  Measuring upper arm elevation using an inertial measurement unit: An exploration of sensor fusion algorithms and gyroscope models. , 2020, Applied ergonomics.

[12]  Shuping Xiong,et al.  Development and Validation of a Wearable Inertial Sensors-Based Automated System for Assessing Work-Related Musculoskeletal Disorders in the Workspace , 2020, International journal of environmental research and public health.

[13]  Enzo Pasquale Scilingo,et al.  A New Smart-Fabric based Body Area Sensor Network for Work Risk Assessment , 2020, 2020 IEEE International Workshop on Metrology for Industry 4.0 & IoT.

[14]  Mikael Forsman,et al.  Inter- and intra-rater reliability of the OCRA checklist method in video-recorded manual work tasks. , 2020, Applied ergonomics.

[15]  Clive D’Souza,et al.  A Narrative Review on Contemporary and Emerging Uses of Inertial Sensing in Occupational Ergonomics. , 2020, International journal of industrial ergonomics.

[16]  Udeni Jayasinghe,et al.  Comparing Clothing-Mounted Sensors with Wearable Sensors for Movement Analysis and Activity Classification , 2019, Sensors.

[17]  Fernando Seoane,et al.  Towards Smart Work Clothing for Automatic Risk Assessment of Physical Workload , 2018, IEEE Access.

[18]  Xuesu Xiao,et al.  Machine Learning for Placement-Insensitive Inertial Motion Capture , 2018, 2018 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA).

[19]  Sam Gleadhill,et al.  Validating Temporal Motion Kinematics from Clothing Attached Inertial Sensors , 2018 .

[20]  Howard Chen,et al.  Characterizing exposure to physical risk factors among reforestation hand planters in the Southeastern United States. , 2018, Applied ergonomics.

[21]  Mikael Forsman,et al.  An iPhone application for upper arm posture and movement measurements. , 2017, Applied ergonomics.

[22]  W. Mechelen,et al.  A research framework for the development and implementation of interventions preventing work-related musculoskeletal disorders. , 2017, Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health.

[23]  Aurelio Cappozzo,et al.  Human movement analysis: The soft tissue artefact issue. , 2017, Journal of biomechanics.

[24]  M. Forsman,et al.  The search for practical and reliable observational or technical risk assessment methods to be used in prevention of musculoskeletal disorders , 2017 .

[25]  Svend Erik Mathiassen,et al.  Full-Shift Trunk and Upper Arm Postures and Movements Among Aircraft Baggage Handlers. , 2016, The Annals of occupational hygiene.

[26]  Kaj Bo Veiersted,et al.  Validity of Questionnaire and Representativeness of Objective Methods for Measurements of Mechanical Exposures in Construction and Health Care Work , 2016, PloS one.

[27]  R. Rittner,et al.  Exposure-response relationships for work-related neck and shoulder musculoskeletal disorders--Analyses of pooled uniform data sets. , 2016, Applied ergonomics.

[28]  Mark C Schall,et al.  Working postures and physical activity among registered nurses. , 2016, Applied ergonomics.

[29]  Fei Dai,et al.  Risk Assessment of Work-Related Musculoskeletal Disorders in Construction: State-of-the-Art Review , 2015 .

[30]  Ida Ahlberg.  The economic costs of musculoskeletal disorders - A cost-of-illness study in Sweden for 2012 , 2014 .

[31]  Svend Erik Mathiassen,et al.  Systematic evaluation of observational methods assessing biomechanical exposures at work. , 2010, Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health.

[32]  Richard Wells,et al.  Why have we not solved the MSD problem? , 2009, Work.

[33]  G. Hansson,et al.  Validity and reliability of triaxial accelerometers for inclinometry in posture analysis , 2001, Medical and Biological Engineering and Computing.

[34]  P Asterland,et al.  Questionnaire versus direct technical measurements in assessing postures and movements of the head, upper back, arms and hands. , 2001, Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health.