Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Validation and comparison of three positioning protocols of inertial measurement units for measuring trunk movement
KTH, School of Engineering Sciences in Chemistry, Biotechnology and Health (CBH), Biomedical Engineering and Health Systems, Ergonomics. Institute of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
KTH, School of Engineering Sciences in Chemistry, Biotechnology and Health (CBH), Biomedical Engineering and Health Systems, Ergonomics. Institute of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
2019 (English)In: 20th Congress of the International Ergonomics Association, IEA 2018, Springer, 2019, p. 205-211Conference paper, Published paper (Refereed)
Abstract [en]

Postures and movements of the trunk are of ergonomic concern when evaluating the risks at work. Technical measurement methods can be used for measurements of trunk movements for long duration with high accuracy, and are therefore increasingly used in practice and research. However, currently there is no standardized protocol for the sensor placement for trunk measurement. Three placement protocols of inertial measurement units (IMUs), including placement on C7, T4 and sternum (St), in combination with S1 spinous process, were compared with an optical motion capture (OMC) system. Four subjects performed a movement test including forward to backward bending, sideward bending and twisting of the trunk, and a symmetrical lifting task. Root-mean-square differences (RMSDs) and Pearson’s correlation were calculated between the two systems. For the movement tests, the RMSDs of the forward inclination at the 10th, 50th and 90th percentiles from the three IMUs were all smaller than 7.3°. Larger differences were shown for C7 of the sideward inclination at 90th percentile (10.8°). Also for the twisting, larger differences were shown, especially for C7-S1 and T4-S1 (RMSD = 16.5° and 19.8°). For the lifting tests of forward inclination, St had the smallest differences compared to OMC (RMSDs < 4.1°), while slightly larger errors were found for C7 and T4 at the 90th percentile (RMSDs = 8.1° and 8.2°). Different positioning protocols seem to have a slightly different effect on the measurement accuracy of trunk movement. Considerations should be taken when comparing results across studies applying different protocols.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Springer, 2019. p. 205-211
Keywords [en]
Inertial sensor, Postural assessment, Trunk motion
National Category
Other Medical Engineering
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-233650DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-96083-8_27Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-85051807854ISBN: 9783319960821 (print)OAI: oai:DiVA.org:kth-233650DiVA, id: diva2:1242556
Conference
20th Congress of the International Ergonomics Association, IEA 2018, Florence, Italy, 26 August 2018 through 30 August 2018
Note

QC 20180828

Available from: 2018-08-28 Created: 2018-08-28 Last updated: 2018-08-28Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textScopus

Authority records BETA

Yang, LiyunForsman, Mikael

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Yang, LiyunForsman, Mikael
By organisation
Ergonomics
Other Medical Engineering

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
isbn
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
isbn
urn-nbn
Total: 3305 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf