The influence of transfer distance and pace of work on foot positioning strategies and low back loading in a manual material handling task

Foot positioning strategies are a key parameter in manual materials handling. The objective of this study was to assess the effects of transfer distance, pace and foot positioning on low back loading. Sixteen handlers performed a free handling task with conditions of pace (self-selected and 25% faster), distance (1.5 m, 1.0 m and 0.5 m), height (near-ground and above-waist levels), and mass (10 kg and 20 kg). A linear mixed model was used to evaluate the effects of mass, distance, pace and height on foot positioning occurrences. A non-parametric test (nparLD) was used to evaluate the effects of Pace × Foot positioning and Distance × Foot positioning on L5/S1 sagittal and asymmetrical moments. Positioning the feet aside from the lifting pallet was more prevalent when transferring at shorter transfer distances, high lifting height, and faster pace. When the feet were oriented aside the lifting area, asymmetrical peak moments were slightly higher when transferring at short distance. Facing the lifting pallet may ensure load symmetry, but orienting the feet aside may help to adapt to fast pace or short transfer distance.

Estimation of Spinal Loading During Manual Materials Handling Using Inertial Motion Capture

Musculoskeletal models have traditionally relied on measurements of segment kinematics and ground reaction forces and moments (GRF&Ms) from marked-based motion capture and floor-mounted force plates, which are typically limited to laboratory settings. Recent advances in inertial motion capture (IMC) as well as methods for predicting GRF&Ms have enabled the acquisition of these input data in the field. Therefore, this study evaluated the concurrent validity of a novel methodology for estimating the dynamic loading of the lumbar spine during manual materials handling based on a musculoskeletal model driven exclusively using IMC data and predicted GRF&Ms. Trunk kinematics, GRF&Ms, L4-L5 joint reaction forces (JRFs) and erector spinae muscle forces from 13 subjects performing various lifting and transferring tasks were compared to a model driven by simultaneously recorded skin-marker trajectories and force plate data. Moderate to excellent correlations and relatively low magnitude differences were found for the L4-L5 axial compression, erector spinae muscle and vertical ground reaction forces during symmetrical and asymmetrical lifting, but discrepancies were also identified between the models, particularly for the trunk kinematics and L4-L5 shear forces. Based on these results, the presented methodology can be applied for estimating the relative L4-L5 axial compression forces under dynamic conditions during manual materials handling in the field.

Estimating 3D L5/S1 moments and ground reaction forces during trunk bending using a full-body ambulatory inertial motion capture system

Inertial motion capture (IMC) systems have become increasingly popular for ambulatory movement analysis. However, few studies have attempted to use these measurement techniques to estimate kinetic variables, such as joint moments and ground reaction forces (GRFs). Therefore, we investigated the performance of a full-body ambulatory IMC system in estimating 3D L5/S1 moments and GRFs during symmetric, asymmetric and fast trunk bending, performed by nine male participants. Using an ambulatory IMC system (Xsens/MVN), L5/S1 moments were estimated based on the upper-body segment kinematics using a top-down inverse dynamics analysis, and GRFs were estimated based on full-body segment accelerations. As a reference, a laboratory measurement system was utilized: GRFs were measured with Kistler force plates (FPs), and L5/S1 moments were calculated using a bottom-up inverse dynamics model based on FP data and lower-body kinematics measured with an optical motion capture system (OMC). Correspondence between the OMC+FP and IMC systems was quantified by calculating root-mean-square errors (RMSerrors) of moment/force time series and the interclass correlation (ICC) of the absolute peak moments/forces. Averaged over subjects, L5/S1 moment RMSerrors remained below 10Nm (about 5% of the peak extension moment) and 3D GRF RMSerrors remained below 20N (about 2% of the peak vertical force). ICCs were high for the peak L5/S1 extension moment (0.971) and vertical GRF (0.998). Due to lower amplitudes, smaller ICCs were found for the peak asymmetric L5/S1 moments (0.690-0.781) and horizontal GRFs (0.559-0.948). In conclusion, close correspondence was found between the ambulatory IMC-based and laboratory-based estimates of back load.