A Comparison of Examination Equipment Used During Common Clinical Ophthalmologic Tasks

Manufacturing worker perceptions of using wearable inertial sensors for multiple work shifts

Wearable inertial sensors may be used to objectively quantify exposure to some physical risk factors associated with musculoskeletal disorders. However, concerns regarding their potential negative effects on user safety and satisfaction remain. This study characterized the self-reported daily discomfort, distraction, and burden associated with wearing inertial sensors on the upper arms, trunk, and dominant wrist of 31 manufacturing workers collected over 15 full work shifts. Results indicated that the workers considered the devices as generally comfortable to wear, not distracting, and not burdensome to use. Exposure to non-neutral postures (discomfort, right arm, beta = 0.02; trunk, beta = -0.01), non-cyclic tasks (distraction, beta = -0.26), and higher body mass indices (discomfort, beta = 0.05; distraction, beta = 0.02) contributed to statistically significant (p < 0.05), albeit practically small increases in undesirable ratings. For instance, for each additional percentage of time working with the right arm elevated ≥60°, self-reported discomfort ratings increased 0.02 cm on a standard 10 cm visual analog scale. Female workers reported less discomfort and distraction while wearing the sensors at work than males (discomfort, beta = -0.93; distraction, beta = -0.3). In general, the low ratings of discomfort, distraction, and burden associated with wearing the devices during work suggests that inertial sensors may be suitable for extended use among manufacturing workers.

Measuring upper arm elevation using an inertial measurement unit: An exploration of sensor fusion algorithms and gyroscope models

Many sensor fusion algorithms for analyzing human motion information collected with inertial measurement units have been reported in the scientific literature. Selecting which algorithm to use can be a challenge for ergonomists that may be unfamiliar with the strengths and limitations of the various options. In this paper, we describe fundamental differences among several algorithms, including differences in sensor fusion approach (e.g., complementary filter vs. Kalman Filter) and gyroscope error modeling (i.e., inclusion or exclusion of gyroscope bias). We then compare different sensor fusion algorithms considering the fundamentals discussed using laboratory-based measurements of upper arm elevation collected under three motion speeds. Results indicate peak displacement errors of <4.5° with a computationally efficient, non-proprietary complementary filter that did not account for gyroscope bias during each of the one-minute trials. Controlling for gyroscope bias reduced peak displacement errors to <3.0°. The complementary filters were comparable (<1° peak displacement difference) to the more complex Kalman filters.

Characterizing exposure to physical risk factors among reforestation hand planters in the Southeastern United States

Low back and neck/shoulder pain are commonly reported among reforestation hand planters. While some studies have documented the intensive cardiovascular demands of hand planting, limited information is available regarding exposures to physical risk factors associated with the development of musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) among hand planters. This study used surface electromyography (EMG) and inertial measurement units (IMUs) to characterize the muscle activation patterns, upper arm and trunk postures, movement velocities, and physical activity (PA) of fourteen Southeastern reforestation hand planters over one work shift. Results indicated that hand planters are exposed to physical risk factors such as extreme trunk postures (32.5% of time spent in ≥45° trunk flexion) and high effort muscle exertions (e.g., mean root-mean-square right upper trapezius amplitude of 54.1% reference voluntary exertion) that may place them at increased risk for developing MSDs. The findings indicate a need for continued field-based research among hand planters to identify and/or develop maximally effective interventions.

Working postures and physical activity among registered nurses

Nurses report a high prevalence of musculoskeletal discomfort, particularly of the low back and neck/shoulder. This study characterized the full-shift upper arm and trunk postures and movement velocities of registered nurses using inertial measurement units (IMUs). Intensity of occupational physical activity (PA) was also ascertained using a waist-worn PA monitor and using the raw acceleration data from each IMU. Results indicated that nurses spent a relatively small proportion of their work time with the arms or trunk in extreme postures, but had few opportunities for rest and recovery in comparison to several other occupational groups. Comparisons between nurses in different PA groups suggested that using a combination of accelerometers secured to several body locations may provide more representative estimates of physical demands than a single, waist-worn PA monitor. The findings indicate a need for continued field-based research with larger sample sizes to facilitate the development of maximally effective intervention strategies.

Accuracy and repeatability of an inertial measurement unit system for field-based occupational studies

The accuracy and repeatability of an inertial measurement unit (IMU) system for directly measuring trunk angular displacement and upper arm elevation were evaluated over eight hours (i) in comparison to a gold standard, optical motion capture (OMC) system in a laboratory setting, and (ii) during a field-based assessment of dairy parlour work. Sample-to-sample root mean square differences between the IMU and OMC system ranged from 4.1° to 6.6° for the trunk and 7.2°-12.1° for the upper arm depending on the processing method. Estimates of mean angular displacement and angular displacement variation (difference between the 90th and 10th percentiles of angular displacement) were observed to change <4.5° on average in the laboratory and <1.5° on average in the field per eight hours of data collection. Results suggest the IMU system may serve as an acceptable instrument for directly measuring trunk and upper arm postures in field-based occupational exposure assessment studies with long sampling durations. Practitioner Summary: Few studies have evaluated inertial measurement unit (IMU) systems in the field or over long sampling durations. Results of this study indicate that the IMU system evaluated has reasonably good accuracy and repeatability for use in a field setting over a long sampling duration.

A comparison of instrumentation methods to estimate thoracolumbar motion in field-based occupational studies

The performance of an inertial measurement unit (IMU) system for directly measuring thoracolumbar trunk motion was compared to that of the Lumbar Motion Monitor (LMM). Thirty-six male participants completed a simulated material handling task with both systems deployed simultaneously. Estimates of thoracolumbar trunk motion obtained with the IMU system were processed using five common methods for estimating trunk motion characteristics. Results of measurements obtained from IMUs secured to the sternum and pelvis had smaller root-mean-square differences and mean bias estimates in comparison to results obtained with the LMM than results of measurements obtained solely from a sternum mounted IMU. Fusion of IMU accelerometer measurements with IMU gyroscope and/or magnetometer measurements was observed to increase comparability to the LMM. Results suggest investigators should consider computing thoracolumbar trunk motion as a function of estimates from multiple IMUs using fusion algorithms rather than using a single accelerometer secured to the sternum in field-based studies.