SwePub
Sök i LIBRIS databas

  Extended search

WFRF:(Lind Carl Mikael)
 

Search: WFRF:(Lind Carl Mikael) > Effects of sensor t...

Effects of sensor types and angular velocity computational methods in field measurements of occupational upper arm and trunk postures and movements

Fan, Xuelong (author)
Karolinska Institutet
Lind, Carl Mikael (author)
KTH,Ergonomi,Karolinska Inst, IMM Inst Environm Med, SE-17177 Stockholm, Sweden.,Kungliga Tekniska Högskolan (KTH),Royal Institute of Technology (KTH),Karolinska Institutet
Rhen, Ida-Märta, 1975 (author)
Karolinska Institutet
show more...
Forsman, Mikael, Professor (author)
KTH,Ergonomi,Karolinska Inst, IMM Inst Environm Med, SE-17177 Stockholm, Sweden.,Stockholms läns landsting,Stockholm County Council,Karolinska Institutet,Kungliga Tekniska Högskolan (KTH),Royal Institute of Technology (KTH)
show less...
 (creator_code:org_t)
2021-08-17
2021
English.
In: Sensors. - : MDPI AG. - 1424-8220. ; 21:16
  • Journal article (peer-reviewed)
Abstract Subject headings
Close  
  • 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.

Subject headings

TEKNIK OCH TEKNOLOGIER  -- Medicinteknik -- Medicinsk laboratorie- och mätteknik (hsv//swe)
ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY  -- Medical Engineering -- Medical Laboratory and Measurements Technologies (hsv//eng)
TEKNIK OCH TEKNOLOGIER  -- Medicinteknik -- Annan medicinteknik (hsv//swe)
ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY  -- Medical Engineering -- Other Medical Engineering (hsv//eng)
NATURVETENSKAP  -- Geovetenskap och miljövetenskap -- Geofysik (hsv//swe)
NATURAL SCIENCES  -- Earth and Related Environmental Sciences -- Geophysics (hsv//eng)
MEDICIN OCH HÄLSOVETENSKAP  -- Hälsovetenskap -- Arbetsmedicin och miljömedicin (hsv//swe)
MEDICAL AND HEALTH SCIENCES  -- Health Sciences -- Occupational Health and Environmental Health (hsv//eng)

Keyword

Sensor fusion
Ergonomics
Inertial measurement unit
Field measurement
Threshold limit value
Biomechanics
Workload
Musculoskeletal disorders
Accelerometer
Kinematics

Publication and Content Type

art (subject category)
ref (subject category)

Find in a library

  • Sensors (Search for host publication in LIBRIS)

To the university's database

Search outside SwePub

Kungliga biblioteket hanterar dina personuppgifter i enlighet med EU:s dataskyddsförordning (2018), GDPR. Läs mer om hur det funkar här.
Så här hanterar KB dina uppgifter vid användning av denna tjänst.

 
pil uppåt Close

Copy and save the link in order to return to this view