When is a lifting movement too asymmetric to identify low back loading by 2D analysis

I. Kingma, M.P. de Looze, J.H. van Dieen, H.M. Toussaint, M.A. Adams, C.T.M. Baten

    Research output: Contribution to JournalArticleAcademicpeer-review

    Abstract

    In ergonomics research, two-dimensional (2-D) biomechanical models are often used to study the mechanical loading of the low back in lifting movements. When lifting movements are asymmetric, errors of unknown size may be introduced in a 2-D analysis. In the current study, an estimation of these errors was made by comparing the outcome of a 2-D analysis to the results of a recently developed and validated 3-D model. Four subjects made two repetitions of five lifting movements, differing in the amount of asymmetry. The results showed a significant underestimation of the peak torque by 20, 36 and 61% when the initial position of a box was rotated 30, 60 and 90°with respect to the sagittal plane of the subject. The main cause of this underestimation was a pelvic twist, resulting in an erroneous projection of a pelvic marker on to the sagittal plane due to pelvic twist. It is suggested that from 30°box rotation a 2-D analysis may easily lead to wrong conclusions when it is used to study asymmetric lifting.
    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)1453-1461
    Number of pages9
    JournalErgonomics
    Volume41
    Issue number10
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 1998

    Fingerprint

    Ergonomics
    Torque
    asymmetry
    ergonomics
    projection
    Human Engineering
    respect
    cause
    Research

    Cite this

    Kingma, I. ; de Looze, M.P. ; van Dieen, J.H. ; Toussaint, H.M. ; Adams, M.A. ; Baten, C.T.M. / When is a lifting movement too asymmetric to identify low back loading by 2D analysis. In: Ergonomics. 1998 ; Vol. 41, No. 10. pp. 1453-1461.
    @article{13dca09f10874c70a81f289c93f24611,
    title = "When is a lifting movement too asymmetric to identify low back loading by 2D analysis",
    abstract = "In ergonomics research, two-dimensional (2-D) biomechanical models are often used to study the mechanical loading of the low back in lifting movements. When lifting movements are asymmetric, errors of unknown size may be introduced in a 2-D analysis. In the current study, an estimation of these errors was made by comparing the outcome of a 2-D analysis to the results of a recently developed and validated 3-D model. Four subjects made two repetitions of five lifting movements, differing in the amount of asymmetry. The results showed a significant underestimation of the peak torque by 20, 36 and 61{\%} when the initial position of a box was rotated 30, 60 and 90°with respect to the sagittal plane of the subject. The main cause of this underestimation was a pelvic twist, resulting in an erroneous projection of a pelvic marker on to the sagittal plane due to pelvic twist. It is suggested that from 30°box rotation a 2-D analysis may easily lead to wrong conclusions when it is used to study asymmetric lifting.",
    author = "I. Kingma and {de Looze}, M.P. and {van Dieen}, J.H. and H.M. Toussaint and M.A. Adams and C.T.M. Baten",
    year = "1998",
    doi = "10.1080/001401398186207",
    language = "English",
    volume = "41",
    pages = "1453--1461",
    journal = "Ergonomics",
    issn = "0014-0139",
    publisher = "Taylor and Francis Ltd.",
    number = "10",

    }

    When is a lifting movement too asymmetric to identify low back loading by 2D analysis. / Kingma, I.; de Looze, M.P.; van Dieen, J.H.; Toussaint, H.M.; Adams, M.A.; Baten, C.T.M.

    In: Ergonomics, Vol. 41, No. 10, 1998, p. 1453-1461.

    Research output: Contribution to JournalArticleAcademicpeer-review

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - When is a lifting movement too asymmetric to identify low back loading by 2D analysis

    AU - Kingma, I.

    AU - de Looze, M.P.

    AU - van Dieen, J.H.

    AU - Toussaint, H.M.

    AU - Adams, M.A.

    AU - Baten, C.T.M.

    PY - 1998

    Y1 - 1998

    N2 - In ergonomics research, two-dimensional (2-D) biomechanical models are often used to study the mechanical loading of the low back in lifting movements. When lifting movements are asymmetric, errors of unknown size may be introduced in a 2-D analysis. In the current study, an estimation of these errors was made by comparing the outcome of a 2-D analysis to the results of a recently developed and validated 3-D model. Four subjects made two repetitions of five lifting movements, differing in the amount of asymmetry. The results showed a significant underestimation of the peak torque by 20, 36 and 61% when the initial position of a box was rotated 30, 60 and 90°with respect to the sagittal plane of the subject. The main cause of this underestimation was a pelvic twist, resulting in an erroneous projection of a pelvic marker on to the sagittal plane due to pelvic twist. It is suggested that from 30°box rotation a 2-D analysis may easily lead to wrong conclusions when it is used to study asymmetric lifting.

    AB - In ergonomics research, two-dimensional (2-D) biomechanical models are often used to study the mechanical loading of the low back in lifting movements. When lifting movements are asymmetric, errors of unknown size may be introduced in a 2-D analysis. In the current study, an estimation of these errors was made by comparing the outcome of a 2-D analysis to the results of a recently developed and validated 3-D model. Four subjects made two repetitions of five lifting movements, differing in the amount of asymmetry. The results showed a significant underestimation of the peak torque by 20, 36 and 61% when the initial position of a box was rotated 30, 60 and 90°with respect to the sagittal plane of the subject. The main cause of this underestimation was a pelvic twist, resulting in an erroneous projection of a pelvic marker on to the sagittal plane due to pelvic twist. It is suggested that from 30°box rotation a 2-D analysis may easily lead to wrong conclusions when it is used to study asymmetric lifting.

    U2 - 10.1080/001401398186207

    DO - 10.1080/001401398186207

    M3 - Article

    VL - 41

    SP - 1453

    EP - 1461

    JO - Ergonomics

    JF - Ergonomics

    SN - 0014-0139

    IS - 10

    ER -