Submit to Bioengineering Review for Bioengineering Propose a Special Issue

Journal Browser

Advances in Wearable Technologies for ”In-Field” Assessment of Biomechanical Risk

Print Special Issue Flyer
Special Issue Editors
Special Issue Information
Keywords
Published Papers

A special issue of Bioengineering (ISSN 2306-5354). This special issue belongs to the section "Biomechanics and Sports Medicine".

Deadline for manuscript submissions: closed (31 January 2024) | Viewed by 5625

Share This Special Issue

Special Issue Editors

Dr. Micaela Porta

E-Mail Website
Guest Editor

Department of Mechanical, Chemical and Materials Engineering, University of Cagliari, 09123 Cagliari, Italy
Interests: human movement analysis, wearable sensors, inertial sensors, ergonomics exposure assessment

Prof. Dr. Massimiliano Pau

E-Mail Website
Guest Editor

Department of Mechanical, Chemical and Materials Engineering, University of Cagliari, 09123 Cagliari, Italy
Interests: human movement analysis; gait analysis; postural control; neurological diseases; ageing; ergonomics; wearable sensors

Special Issue Information

Dear Colleagues,

In recent decades, wearable technologies have been through exceptional improvements, which has allowed researchers to develop small size, lightweight, low power consumption devices at affordable cost, with the possibility to collect data on-board for long periods of time. Due to these characteristics, and to the fact that wearable sensors are mostly unobtrusive (and, thus, well accepted) for workers, they gained significant popularity in the ergonomics context, where they are usually employed to assess various type of parameters associated with the development of occupational musculoskeletal disorders. However, despite its potentiality in overcoming the main issues associated with the observational methods (i.e., time consuming, not suitable for dynamic tasks and dependent by the experience of the observer), the application of wearable technologies for the assessment of biomechanical risk factors in real working environment, is still far from being the “gold-standard”, basically due to the lack of standardization in terms of setup, measurement protocols, data processing techniques, etc.

In this context, the aim of this collection is to gather contributions that are useful to better delineate benefits and criticalities of wearable technologies in their various forms (e.g., inertial sensors, force/pressure sensors, electromyography, etc.) for the continuous assessment of biomechanical risk factors (e.g., posture, movement velocities, movement repetitions, loads) in actual working environments where the development of occupational musculoskeletal disorders represents a critical issue.

This collection welcomes original research articles and systematic reviews focused on the use of wearable sensor and related data processing techniques for the continuous assessment of biomechanical risk factors in actual working environments.

Dr. Micaela Porta
Prof. Dr. Massimiliano Pau
Guest Editors

Manuscript Submission Information

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All submissions that pass pre-check are peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 100 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for announcement on this website.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a single-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Bioengineering is an international peer-reviewed open access monthly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 2700 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

Keywords

wearable sensors
ergonomics
real working context
musculoskeletal disorders
continuous assessment
biomechanical risk
motion analysis

Published Papers (5 papers)

Download All Papers

Research

Jump to: Other

21 pages, 1468 KiB

Open AccessArticle

Ergonomic Analysis of Dental Work in Different Oral Quadrants: A Motion Capture Preliminary Study among Endodontists

by Sophie Feige, Fabian Holzgreve, Laura Fraeulin, Christian Maurer-Grubinger, Werner Betz, Christina Erbe, Albert Nienhaus, David A. Groneberg and Daniela Ohlendorf

Bioengineering 2024, 11(4), 400; https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering11040400 - 19 Apr 2024

Viewed by 484

Abstract

Background: Dentists, including endodontists, frequently experience musculoskeletal disorders due to unfavourable working postures. Several measures are known to reduce the ergonomic risk; however, there are still gaps in the research, particularly in relation to dental work in the different oral regions (Quadrants 1–4). Methods: In this study (of a pilot character), a total of 15 dentists (8 male and 7 female) specialising in endodontics were measured while performing root canal treatments on a phantom head. These measurements took place in a laboratory setting using an inertial motion capture system. A slightly modified Rapid Upper Limb Assessment (RULA) coding system was employed for the analysis of kinematic data. The significance level was set at p = 0.05. Results: The ergonomic risk for the entire body was higher in the fourth quadrant than in the first quadrant for 80% of the endodontists and higher than in the second quadrant for 87%. For 87% of the endodontists, the ergonomic risk for the right side of the body was significantly higher in the fourth quadrant compared to the first and second quadrant. The right arm was stressed more in the lower jaw than in the upper jaw, and the neck also showed a greater ergonomic risk in the fourth quadrant compared to the first quadrant. Conclusion: In summary, both the total RULA score and scores for the right- and lefthand sides of the body ranged between 5 and 6 out of a possible 7 points. Considering this considerable burden, heightened attention, especially to the fourth quadrant with a significantly higher ergonomic risk compared to Quadrants 1 and 2, may be warranted. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Wearable Technologies for ”In-Field” Assessment of Biomechanical Risk)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

16 pages, 11340 KiB

Open AccessArticle

Dynamic and Static Assistive Strategies for a Tailored Occupational Back-Support Exoskeleton: Assessment on Real Tasks Carried Out by Railway Workers

by Christian Di Natali, Tommaso Poliero, Vasco Fanti, Matteo Sposito and Darwin G. Caldwell

Bioengineering 2024, 11(2), 172; https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering11020172 - 10 Feb 2024

Cited by 1 | Viewed by 707

Abstract

This study on occupational back-support exoskeletons performs a laboratory evaluation of realistic tasks with expert workers from the railway sector. Workers performed both a static task and a dynamic task, each involving manual material handling (MMH) and manipulating loads of 20 kg, in three conditions: without an exoskeleton, with a commercially available passive exoskeleton (Laevo v2.56), and with the StreamEXO, an active back-support exoskeleton developed by our institute. Two control strategies were defined, one for dynamic tasks and one for static tasks, with the latter determining the upper body’s gravity compensation through the Model-based Gravity Compensation (MB-Grav) approach. This work presents a comparative assessment of the performance of active back support exoskeletons versus passive exoskeletons when trialled in relevant and realistic tasks. After a lab characterization of the MB-Grav strategy, the experimental assessment compared two back-support exoskeletons, one active and one passive. The results showed that while both devices were able to reduce back muscle activation, the benefits of the active device were triple those of the passive system regarding back muscle activation (

26 %

and

33 %

against

9 %

and

11 %

, respectively), while the passive exoskeleton hindered trunk mobility more than the active mechanism. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Wearable Technologies for ”In-Field” Assessment of Biomechanical Risk)

► Show Figures

Graphical abstract

15 pages, 1528 KiB

Open AccessArticle

Physical Ergonomic Assessment in Cleaning Hospital Operating Rooms Based on Inertial Measurement Units

by Daniel Koskas and Nicolas Vignais

Bioengineering 2024, 11(2), 154; https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering11020154 - 03 Feb 2024

Viewed by 745

Abstract

Workers involved in hospital operating room cleaning face numerous constraints that may lead to musculoskeletal disorders. This study aimed to perform physical ergonomic assessments on hospital staff by combining a continuous assessment (RULA) based on inertial measurement units with video coding. Eight participants performed cleaning tasks while wearing IMUs and being video recorded. A subjective evaluation was performed through the Nordic questionnaire. Global RULA scores equaled 4.21 ± 1.15 and 4.19 ± 1.20 for the right and left sides, respectively, spending most of the time in the RULA range of 3–4 (right: 63.54 ± 31.59%; left: 64.33 ± 32.33%). Elbows and lower arms were the most exposed upper body areas with the highest percentages of time spent over a risky threshold (right: 86.69 ± 27.27%; left: 91.70 ± 29.07%). The subtask analysis identified ‘operating table moving’, ‘stretcher moving’, and ‘trolley moving’ as the riskiest subtasks. Thus, this method allowed an extensive ergonomic analysis, highlighting both risky anatomical areas and subtasks that need to be reconsidered. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Wearable Technologies for ”In-Field” Assessment of Biomechanical Risk)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

14 pages, 9078 KiB

Open AccessEditor’s ChoiceArticle

Validation of Automatically Quantified Swim Stroke Mechanics Using an Inertial Measurement Unit in Paralympic Athletes

by Matthew Slopecki, Mathieu Charbonneau, Jean-Michel Lavallière, Julie N. Côté and Julien Clément

Bioengineering 2024, 11(1), 15; https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering11010015 - 23 Dec 2023

Viewed by 1146

Abstract

Biomechanics and training load monitoring are important for performance evaluation and injury prevention in elite swimming. Monitoring of performance and swim stroke parameters is possible with inertial measurement units (IMU) but has not been validated in para-swimmers. The purpose of this study was to validate a single IMU-based system to accurately estimate pool-swam lap time, stroke count (SC), stroke duration, instantaneous stroke rate (ISR), and distance per stroke (DPS). Eight Paralympic athletes completed 4 × 50 m swims with an IMU worn on the sacrum. Strokes cycles were identified using a zero-crossing algorithm on the medio-lateral (freestyle and backstroke) or forward-backward (butterfly and breaststroke) instantaneous velocity data. Video-derived metrics were estimated using Dartfish and Kinovea. Agreement analyses, including Bland–Altman and Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC), were performed on all outcome variables. SC Bland–Altman bias was 0.13 strokes, and ICC was 0.97. ISR Bland–Altman biases were within 1.5 strokes/min, and ICCs ranged from 0.26 to 0.96. DPS Bland–Altman biases were within 0.20 m, and ICCs ranged from 0.39 to 0.93. A single-IMU system can provide highly valid performance and swim stroke monitoring data for elite para-swimmers for the majority of strokes, with the exception of backstroke. Future work should improve bilateral stroke detection algorithms in this population. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Wearable Technologies for ”In-Field” Assessment of Biomechanical Risk)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

Other

Jump to: Research

35 pages, 4397 KiB

Open AccessSystematic Review

Biomechanical Assessments of the Upper Limb for Determining Fatigue, Strain and Effort from the Laboratory to the Industrial Working Place: A Systematic Review

by Cristina Brambilla, Matteo Lavit Nicora, Fabio Storm, Gianluigi Reni, Matteo Malosio and Alessandro Scano

Bioengineering 2023, 10(4), 445; https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering10040445 - 05 Apr 2023

Cited by 5 | Viewed by 1920

Abstract

Recent human-centered developments in the industrial field (Industry 5.0) lead companies and stakeholders to ensure the wellbeing of their workers with assessments of upper limb performance in the workplace, with the aim of reducing work-related diseases and improving awareness of the physical status of workers, by assessing motor performance, fatigue, strain and effort. Such approaches are usually developed in laboratories and only at times they are translated to on-field applications; few studies summarized common practices for the assessments. Therefore, our aim is to review the current state-of-the-art approaches used for the assessment of fatigue, strain and effort in working scenarios and to analyze in detail the differences between studies that take place in the laboratory and in the workplace, in order to give insights on future trends and directions. A systematic review of the studies aimed at evaluating the motor performance, fatigue, strain and effort of the upper limb targeting working scenarios is presented. A total of 1375 articles were found in scientific databases and 288 were analyzed. About half of the scientific articles are focused on laboratory pilot studies investigating effort and fatigue in laboratories, while the other half are set in working places. Our results showed that assessing upper limb biomechanics is quite common in the field, but it is mostly performed with instrumental assessments in laboratory studies, while questionnaires and scales are preferred in working places. Future directions may be oriented towards multi-domain approaches able to exploit the potential of combined analyses, exploitation of instrumental approaches in workplace, targeting a wider range of people and implementing more structured trials to translate pilot studies to real practice. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Wearable Technologies for ”In-Field” Assessment of Biomechanical Risk)

► Show Figures