Home office versus ergonomic workstation - is the ergonomic risk increased when working at the dining table? An inertial motion capture based pilot study

Transparency as a Means to Analyse the Impact of Inertial Sensors on Users during the Occupational Ergonomic Assessment: A Systematic Review

The literature has yielded promising data over the past decade regarding the use of inertial sensors for the analysis of occupational ergonomics. However, despite their significant advantages (e.g., portability, lightness, low cost, etc.), their widespread implementation in the actual workplace has not yet been realized, possibly due to their discomfort or potential alteration of the worker's behaviour. This systematic review has two main objectives: (i) to synthesize and evaluate studies that have employed inertial sensors in ergonomic analysis based on the RULA method; and (ii) to propose an evaluation system for the transparency of this technology to the user as a potential factor that could influence the behaviour and/or movements of the worker. A search was conducted on the Web of Science and Scopus databases. The studies were summarized and categorized based on the type of industry, objective, type and number of sensors used, body parts analysed, combination (or not) with other technologies, real or controlled environment, and transparency. A total of 17 studies were included in this review. The Xsens MVN system was the most widely used in this review, and the majority of studies were classified with a moderate level of transparency. It is noteworthy, however, that there is a limited and worrisome number of studies conducted in uncontrolled real environments.

Testing the Level of Agreement between Two Methodological Approaches of the Rapid Upper Limb Assessment (RULA) for Occupational Health Practice-An Exemplary Application in the Field of Dentistry

BACKGROUND

The Rapid Upper Limb Assessment (RULA) is used for the risk assessment of workplace-related activities. Thus far, the paper and pen method (RULA-PP) has been predominantly used for this purpose. In the present study, this method was compared with an RULA evaluation based on kinematic data using inertial measurement units (RULA-IMU). The aim of this study was, on the one hand, to work out the differences between these two measurement methods and, on the other, to make recommendations for the future use of the respective method on the basis of the available findings.

METHODS

For this purpose, 130 (dentists + dental assistants, paired as teams) subjects from the dental profession were photographed in an initial situation of dental treatment and simultaneously recorded with the IMU system (Xsens). In order to compare both methods statistically, the median value of the difference of both methods, the weighted Cohen's Kappa, and the agreement chart (mosaic plot) were applied.

RESULTS

In Arm and Wrist Analysis-area A-here were differences in risk scores; here, the median difference was 1, and the agreement in the weighted Cohen's kappa test also remained between 0.07 and 0.16 (no agreement to poor agreement). In area B-Neck, Trunk, and Leg Analysis-the median difference was 0, with at least one poor agreement in the Cohen's Kappa test of 0.23-0.39. The final score has a median of 0 and a Cohen's Kappa value of 0.21-0.28. In the mosaic plot, it can be seen that RULA-IMU had a higher discriminatory power overall and more often reached a value of 7 than RULA-PP.

CONCLUSION

The results indicate a systematic difference between the methods. Thus, in the RULA risk assessment, RULA-IMU is mostly one assessment point above RULA-PP. Therefore, future study results of RULA by RULA-IMU can be compared with literature results obtained by RULA-PP to further improve the risk assessment of musculoskeletal diseases.

The effects of dual screen layout on neck-shoulder muscle activity and head-neck posture variability during computer tasks

BACKGROUND

Larger dual screens have been widely used during office work and their biomechanical exposure should be explored.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the biomechanical effect of two dual screen layouts on neck-shoulder muscle activity and the variability of head-neck posture in computer users.

METHODS

A preliminary study of the user-preferred dual screen angles was carried out in V-shaped and L-shaped layouts. Twenty healthy participants aged 19 to 26 years were recruited and assigned to perform reading, typing, and searching tasks for 30 minutes in both workstation layouts. Electromyography was measured at bilateral cervical erector spinae (CES), sternocleidomastoid (SCM), and upper trapezius (UT). The head-neck lateral bending, rotation, and flexion angles were recorded. The visual analog scale (VAS) was used to evaluate visual strain.

RESULTS

The muscle activity at the left UT and right CES sites when using the V-shaped layout was significantly higher than the L-shaped. There were significant differences in head-neck rotation and flexion angles between the two layouts in reading and typing tasks. In the searching task, there was no significant difference in the head-neck rotation and flexion angles between the two layouts. The visual strain score was significantly higher in the V-shaped layout.

CONCLUSION

The CES and UT muscles displayed higher levels of activation while using the V-shaped layout in comparison to the L-shaped layout. The head-neck rotation and flexion angles differed due to varied types of work when using V-shaped and L-shaped layouts.