» Articles » PMID: 33419101

A Promising Wearable Solution for the Practical and Accurate Monitoring of Low Back Loading in Manual Material Handling

Overview
Journal Sensors (Basel)
Publisher MDPI
Specialty Biotechnology
Date 2021 Jan 9
PMID 33419101
Citations 16
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

(1) Background: Low back disorders are a leading cause of missed work and physical disability in manual material handling due to repetitive lumbar loading and overexertion. Ergonomic assessments are often performed to understand and mitigate the risk of musculoskeletal overexertion injuries. Wearable sensor solutions for monitoring low back loading have the potential to improve the quality, quantity, and efficiency of ergonomic assessments and to expand opportunities for the personalized, continuous monitoring of overexertion injury risk. However, existing wearable solutions using a single inertial measurement unit (IMU) are limited in how accurately they can estimate back loading when objects of varying mass are handled, and alternative solutions in the scientific literature require so many distributed sensors that they are impractical for widespread workplace implementation. We therefore explored new ways to accurately monitor low back loading using a small number of wearable sensors. (2) Methods: We synchronously collected data from laboratory instrumentation and wearable sensors to analyze 10 individuals each performing about 400 different material handling tasks. We explored dozens of candidate solutions that used IMUs on various body locations and/or pressure insoles. (3) Results: We found that the two key sensors for accurately monitoring low back loading are a trunk IMU and pressure insoles. Using signals from these two sensors together with a Gradient Boosted Decision Tree algorithm has the potential to provide a practical (relatively few sensors), accurate (up to r = 0.89), and automated way (using wearables) to monitor time series lumbar moments across a broad range of material handling tasks. The trunk IMU could be replaced by thigh IMUs, or a pelvis IMU, without sacrificing much accuracy, but there was no practical substitute for the pressure insoles. The key to realizing accurate lumbar load estimates with this approach in the real world will be optimizing force estimates from pressure insoles. (4) Conclusions: Here, we present a promising wearable solution for the practical, automated, and accurate monitoring of low back loading during manual material handling.

Citing Articles

Using Fitness Tracker Data to Overcome Pressure Insole Wear Time Challenges for Remote Musculoskeletal Monitoring.

Nurse C, Rodzak K, Volgyesi P, Noehren B, Zelik K Sensors (Basel). 2024; 24(23).

PMID: 39686254 PMC: 11644998. DOI: 10.3390/s24237717.


Advances in Wearable Biosensors for Healthcare: Current Trends, Applications, and Future Perspectives.

Vo D, Trinh K Biosensors (Basel). 2024; 14(11).

PMID: 39590019 PMC: 11592256. DOI: 10.3390/bios14110560.


Comparison of the Accuracy of Ground Reaction Force Component Estimation between Supervised Machine Learning and Deep Learning Methods Using Pressure Insoles.

Kammoun A, Ravier P, Buttelli O Sensors (Basel). 2024; 24(16).

PMID: 39205012 PMC: 11359228. DOI: 10.3390/s24165318.


The Effect of Sensor Feature Inputs on Joint Angle Prediction across Simple Movements.

Hollinger D, Schall Jr M, Chen H, Zabala M Sensors (Basel). 2024; 24(11).

PMID: 38894447 PMC: 11175352. DOI: 10.3390/s24113657.


Improving Biological Joint Moment Estimation During Real-World Tasks With EMG and Instrumented Insoles.

Scherpereel K, Molinaro D, Shepherd M, Inan O, Young A IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2024; 71(9):2718-2727.

PMID: 38619965 PMC: 11364170. DOI: 10.1109/TBME.2024.3388874.


References
1.
Gallagher S, Schall Jr M . Musculoskeletal disorders as a fatigue failure process: evidence, implications and research needs. Ergonomics. 2016; 60(2):255-269. DOI: 10.1080/00140139.2016.1208848. View

2.
Edwards W . Modeling Overuse Injuries in Sport as a Mechanical Fatigue Phenomenon. Exerc Sport Sci Rev. 2018; 46(4):224-231. DOI: 10.1249/JES.0000000000000163. View

3.
Halilaj E, Rajagopal A, Fiterau M, Hicks J, Hastie T, Delp S . Machine learning in human movement biomechanics: Best practices, common pitfalls, and new opportunities. J Biomech. 2018; 81:1-11. PMC: 6879187. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2018.09.009. View

4.
Matijevich E, Scott L, Volgyesi P, Derry K, Zelik K . Combining wearable sensor signals, machine learning and biomechanics to estimate tibial bone force and damage during running. Hum Mov Sci. 2020; 74:102690. PMC: 9827619. DOI: 10.1016/j.humov.2020.102690. View

5.
Matijevich E, Branscombe L, Scott L, Zelik K . Ground reaction force metrics are not strongly correlated with tibial bone load when running across speeds and slopes: Implications for science, sport and wearable tech. PLoS One. 2019; 14(1):e0210000. PMC: 6336327. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0210000. View