Lifting style and participant's sex do not affect optimal inertial sensor location for ambulatory assessment of trunk inclination.

Trunk inclination (TI) is often used as a measure to quantify back loading in ergonomic workplace evaluation. The goal of the present study was to determine the effects of lifting style and participant's sex on the optimal inertial sensor (IS) location on the back of the trunk for the measurement of TI. Gold-standard TI, defined as the angle between the vertical and the line connecting the L5/S1 joint and the trunk center of mass, was measured using an optoelectronic system. Ten males and ten females performed experimental trials in which a box was lifted from floor level to a 75 cm elevated surface. In each trial the box was lifted using four different styles: symmetric and asymmetric free-style lifts, a stoop lift and a squat lift. Trials were repeated for 13 IS locations between 10% and 40% of the distance from the sacrum to the seventh cervical spinous process (C7). For each participant and each IS location, the root-mean-square error (RMSE) between the gold standard TI and the ISTI was determined. A three-way repeated measures ANOVA analysis revealed no significant effects of the participant's sex on the RMSEs, but the main effects of lifting style and sensor location and their interaction were significant. Despite this significant interaction, a sensor location between 20% and 27.5% of the distance from the sacrum to C7 yielded the smallest RMSEs across all lifting styles. In conclusion, regardless of participant's sex or lifting style, the optimal IS location for the measurement of TI is at about 25% of the distance from the sacrum to C7.

[1]  Peter H. Veltink,et al.  Measuring orientation of human body segments using miniature gyroscopes and accelerometers , 2005, Medical and Biological Engineering and Computing.

[2]  P. Buckle,et al.  Current techniques for assessing physical exposure to work-related musculoskeletal risks, with emphasis on posture-based methods. , 1999, Ergonomics.

[3]  Svend Erik Mathiassen,et al.  An integrated analysis of ergonomics and time consumption in Swedish 'craft-type' car disassembly. , 2005, Applied ergonomics.

[4]  J D Troup,et al.  The influence of age and gender on lumbar spine sagittal plane range of motion. A study of 1126 healthy subjects. , 1994, Spine.

[5]  Vladimir M. Zatsiorsky,et al.  Kinetics of Human Motion , 2002 .

[6]  Jaap H van Dieën,et al.  Regional Changes in Spine Posture at Lift Onset With Changes in Lift Distance and Lift Style , 2007, Spine.

[8]  P. Veltink,et al.  Compensation of magnetic disturbances improves inertial and magnetic sensing of human body segment orientation , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering.

[9]  Vladimir M. Zatsiorsky.  Kinematics of human motion , 1998 .

[10]  Idsart Kingma,et al.  Optimal inertial sensor location for ambulatory measurement of trunk inclination. , 2009, Journal of biomechanics.

[11]  I. Kingma,et al.  Effect of lifting height and load mass on low back loading , 2008, Ergonomics.

[12]  F. G. Evans,et al.  Anatomical Data for Analyzing Human Motion , 1983 .

[13]  P. Leva.  Adjustments to Zatsiorsky-Seluyanov's segment inertia parameters. , 1996 .

[14]  Alex Burdorf,et al.  Model for the work-relatedness of low-back pain. , 2003, Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health.

[15]  W. E. Hoogendoorn,et al.  Flexion and Rotation of the Trunk and Lifting at Work Are Risk Factors for Low Back Pain: Results of a Prospective Cohort Study , 2000, Spine.

[16]  Giuseppe Andreoni,et al.  An index for back pain risk assessment in nursery activities , 2004 .

[17]  J W Young,et al.  Spatial Geometry of the Human Pelvis , 1982 .