Adaptation of center of mass control under microgravity in a whole-body lifting task

1999 ◽  
Vol 125 (1) ◽  
pp. 35-42 ◽  
Author(s):  
I. Kingma ◽  
Huub M. Toussaint ◽  
Dianne A. C. M. Commissaris ◽  
Geert J. P. Savelsbergh
Keyword(s):  
Center Of Mass ◽  
Whole Body ◽  
Lifting Task ◽  
Body Lifting

Scaling anticipatory postural adjustments dependent on confidence of load estimation in a bi-manual whole-body lifting task

1998 ◽  
Vol 120 (1) ◽  
pp. 85-94 ◽  
Author(s):  
H. M. Toussaint ◽  
Yvonne M. Michies ◽  
Marije N. Faber ◽  
D. A. C. M Commissaris ◽  
Jaap H. van Dieën
Keyword(s):  
Anticipatory Postural Adjustments ◽  
Whole Body ◽  
Load Estimation ◽  
Postural Adjustments ◽  
Lifting Task ◽  
Body Lifting

Marksmanship Deficits Caused by an Exhaustive Whole-Body Lifting Task With and Without Torso-Borne Loads

2012 ◽  
Vol 26 ◽  
pp. S30-S36 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter N. Frykman ◽  
Donna J. Merullo ◽  
Louis E. Banderet ◽  
Karen Gregorczyk ◽  
Leif Hasselquist
Keyword(s):  
Whole Body ◽  
Lifting Task ◽  
Body Lifting

Anticipatory postural adjustments before load pickup in a bi-manual whole body lifting task

1997 ◽  
Vol 29 (9) ◽  
pp. 1208-1215 ◽  
Author(s):  
HUUB M. TOUSSAINT ◽  
DIANNE A.C. M. COMMISSARIS ◽  
MARCO J. M. HOOZEMANS ◽  
MICHIEL J. OBER ◽  
PETER J. BEEK
Keyword(s):  
Anticipatory Postural Adjustments ◽  
Whole Body ◽  
Postural Adjustments ◽  
Lifting Task ◽  
Body Lifting

Kinematic contribution and synchronization of the trunk, hip, and knee during free-dynamic lifting

2003 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 99-108
Author(s):  
Kermit G. Davis ◽  
Riley E. Splittstoesser ◽  
William S. Marras
Keyword(s):  
Whole Body ◽  
Knee Height ◽  
Squat Lifting ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Free Dynamic ◽  
Body Lifting ◽  
And Task ◽  
Kinematic Contribution ◽  
Stoop Lifting

Although there have been numerous studies evaluating the difference between stooped and squat lifting styles, there remains a lack of understanding of whole body kinematics during unrestricted lifting. The current study evaluated nine males and nine females while lifting two box weights (9.1 kg, 18.2 kg) from five origins below the waist (0, 19, 38, 57, and 76 cm above the floor) and from three task asymmetries (sagittally symmetric, 45° clockwise, 45° counter-clockwise). While the lifting style was significantly influenced by the height of lift origin and to a lesser extent gender, box weight, and task asymmetry, none of the conditions resulted in pure squat or stoop lifting style. However, for lifts above knee height, the lifting style resembled more of a stoop lift while lifts originating below knee height were more of a squat lift. As the origin moved closer to the floor, participants relied more on their hips to accomplish the sagittal flexion but overall adopted a more coordinated whole-body lifting style. All together, as more sagittal flexion is required, more joints are relied upon in a more coordinated effort. The current study indicates that caution needs to be exercised when applying results of pure squat or pure stoop lifting studies to free-style (realistic) lifting.

scholarly journals Modelling the Additivity of Perceived Exertion in Symmetric, Mid-Sagittal Lifting

1994 ◽  
Vol 38 (10) ◽  
pp. 621-625 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian D. Lowe
Keyword(s):  
Perceived Exertion ◽  
Linear Regression Analysis ◽  
Multiple Linear Regression Analysis ◽  
Whole Body ◽  
Coefficient Of Determination ◽  
Perceived Effort ◽  
Repetitive Lifting ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Whole Body Exertion ◽  
Lifting Task

Psychophysical approaches to quantifying perceived effort have been used to evaluate the physical demand of many industrial work activities. An experiment was conducted to examine the relationship between ratings of whole-body perceived exertion and differentiated, regional ratings of exertion. The Borg, CR-10 scale was used by 16 subjects performing a simulated repetitive lifting task. Ratings of perceived exertion were obtained for the arms, legs, torso, and central (cardiorespiratory) effort sensations as well as a rating of overall, whole-body exertion. A multiple linear regression analysis was used to predict the whole-body rating of exertion from the differentiated ratings in lifting tasks using both a squat and stoop posture. In the stoop posture condition the coefficient of determination between whole-body perceived exertion and the model including arm, torso, and central ratings was R2=0.81. In the squat posture condition, the final regression model predicting whole-body exertion contained only the rating from the legs (R2 = 0.62). Differentiated ratings explained the majority of the variance in whole-body perceived exertion for squat and stoop lifting tasks.

Impact of Age and Body Mass Index on Anthropometry in Working Adults

2017 ◽  
Vol 61 (1) ◽  
pp. 1341-1345 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zachary Merrill ◽  
April Chambers ◽  
Rakié Cham
Keyword(s):  
Body Mass Index ◽  
Body Mass ◽  
Center Of Mass ◽  
Biomechanical Model ◽  
Whole Body ◽  
Working Adults ◽  
Biomechanical Models ◽  
Scan Data ◽  
Body Segment Parameters ◽  
The Impact

Body segment parameters (BSPs) such as segment mass and center of mass are used as inputs in ergonomic design and biomechanical models to predict the risk of musculoskeletal injuries. These models have been shown to be sensitive to the BSP values used as inputs, demonstrating the necessity of using accurate and representative parameters. This study aims to provide accurate BSPs by quantifying the impact of age and body mass index on torso and thigh mass and center of mass in working adults using whole body dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scan data. The results showed significant effects of gender, age, and body mass index (BMI) on torso and thigh mass and center of mass, as well as significant effects of age and BMI within genders, indicating that age, gender, and BMI need to be taken into account when predicting BSPs in order to calculate representative ergonomic and biomechanical model outputs.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document