Cargando…

Effects of Sensor Types and Angular Velocity Computational Methods in Field Measurements of Occupational Upper Arm and Trunk Postures and Movements

Accelerometer-based inclinometers have dominated kinematic measurements in previous field studies, while the use of inertial measurement units that additionally include gyroscopes is rapidly increasing. Recent laboratory studies suggest that these two sensor types and the two commonly used angular v...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Fan, Xuelong, Lind, Carl Mikael, Rhen, Ida-Märta, Forsman, Mikael
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8401405/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34450967
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s21165527
_version_ 1783745543571243008
author Fan, Xuelong
Lind, Carl Mikael
Rhen, Ida-Märta
Forsman, Mikael
author_facet Fan, Xuelong
Lind, Carl Mikael
Rhen, Ida-Märta
Forsman, Mikael
author_sort Fan, Xuelong
collection PubMed
description Accelerometer-based inclinometers have dominated kinematic measurements in previous field studies, while the use of inertial measurement units that additionally include gyroscopes is rapidly increasing. Recent laboratory studies suggest that these two sensor types and the two commonly used angular velocity computational methods may produce substantially different results. The aim of this study was, therefore, to evaluate the effects of sensor types and angular velocity computational methods on the measures of work postures and movements in a real occupational setting. Half-workday recordings of arm and trunk postures, and movements from 38 warehouse workers were compared using two sensor types: accelerometers versus accelerometers with gyroscopes—and using two angular velocity computational methods, i.e., inclination velocity versus generalized velocity. The results showed an overall small difference (<2° and value independent) for posture percentiles between the two sensor types, but substantial differences in movement percentiles both between the sensor types and between the angular computational methods. For example, the group mean of the 50th percentiles were for accelerometers: 71°/s (generalized velocity) and 33°/s (inclination velocity)—and for accelerometers with gyroscopes: 31°/s (generalized velocity) and 16°/s (inclination velocity). The significant effects of sensor types and angular computational methods on angular velocity measures in field work are important in inter-study comparisons and in comparisons to recommended threshold limit values.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8401405
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-84014052021-08-29 Effects of Sensor Types and Angular Velocity Computational Methods in Field Measurements of Occupational Upper Arm and Trunk Postures and Movements Fan, Xuelong Lind, Carl Mikael Rhen, Ida-Märta Forsman, Mikael Sensors (Basel) Article Accelerometer-based inclinometers have dominated kinematic measurements in previous field studies, while the use of inertial measurement units that additionally include gyroscopes is rapidly increasing. Recent laboratory studies suggest that these two sensor types and the two commonly used angular velocity computational methods may produce substantially different results. The aim of this study was, therefore, to evaluate the effects of sensor types and angular velocity computational methods on the measures of work postures and movements in a real occupational setting. Half-workday recordings of arm and trunk postures, and movements from 38 warehouse workers were compared using two sensor types: accelerometers versus accelerometers with gyroscopes—and using two angular velocity computational methods, i.e., inclination velocity versus generalized velocity. The results showed an overall small difference (<2° and value independent) for posture percentiles between the two sensor types, but substantial differences in movement percentiles both between the sensor types and between the angular computational methods. For example, the group mean of the 50th percentiles were for accelerometers: 71°/s (generalized velocity) and 33°/s (inclination velocity)—and for accelerometers with gyroscopes: 31°/s (generalized velocity) and 16°/s (inclination velocity). The significant effects of sensor types and angular computational methods on angular velocity measures in field work are important in inter-study comparisons and in comparisons to recommended threshold limit values. MDPI 2021-08-17 /pmc/articles/PMC8401405/ /pubmed/34450967 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s21165527 Text en © 2021 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Fan, Xuelong
Lind, Carl Mikael
Rhen, Ida-Märta
Forsman, Mikael
Effects of Sensor Types and Angular Velocity Computational Methods in Field Measurements of Occupational Upper Arm and Trunk Postures and Movements
title Effects of Sensor Types and Angular Velocity Computational Methods in Field Measurements of Occupational Upper Arm and Trunk Postures and Movements
title_full Effects of Sensor Types and Angular Velocity Computational Methods in Field Measurements of Occupational Upper Arm and Trunk Postures and Movements
title_fullStr Effects of Sensor Types and Angular Velocity Computational Methods in Field Measurements of Occupational Upper Arm and Trunk Postures and Movements
title_full_unstemmed Effects of Sensor Types and Angular Velocity Computational Methods in Field Measurements of Occupational Upper Arm and Trunk Postures and Movements
title_short Effects of Sensor Types and Angular Velocity Computational Methods in Field Measurements of Occupational Upper Arm and Trunk Postures and Movements
title_sort effects of sensor types and angular velocity computational methods in field measurements of occupational upper arm and trunk postures and movements
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8401405/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34450967
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s21165527
work_keys_str_mv AT fanxuelong effectsofsensortypesandangularvelocitycomputationalmethodsinfieldmeasurementsofoccupationalupperarmandtrunkposturesandmovements
AT lindcarlmikael effectsofsensortypesandangularvelocitycomputationalmethodsinfieldmeasurementsofoccupationalupperarmandtrunkposturesandmovements
AT rhenidamarta effectsofsensortypesandangularvelocitycomputationalmethodsinfieldmeasurementsofoccupationalupperarmandtrunkposturesandmovements
AT forsmanmikael effectsofsensortypesandangularvelocitycomputationalmethodsinfieldmeasurementsofoccupationalupperarmandtrunkposturesandmovements