Letter to the editor
References (6)
- et al.
Precision of measurements of physical workload during standardised manual handling Part II: inclinometry of head, upper back, neck and upper arms
J. Electromyogr. Kinesiol
(2006) - et al.
Is what you see what you get? Standard inclinometry of set upper arm elevation angles
Appl. Ergon.
(2015) - et al.
Quantification of soft tissue artifact in lower limb human motion analysis: a systematic review
Gait Posture
(2010)
Cited by (6)
Biomechanical exposure of industrial workers – Influence of automation process
2018, International Journal of Industrial ErgonomicsCitation Excerpt :The inclinometer data were low pass filtered at 5 Hz, the transducer coordinates were transformed to the coordinates of the body segments, and “flexion”, “elevation”, and “angular velocities” were calculated (Hansson et al., 2001). The accuracy and reproducibility of the inclinometers per se are 1.3° and 0.2°, respectively, and therefore they are applicable for measuring occupational movements and postures (Hansson, 2015; Hansson et al., 2006, 2001). For the head, upper back, and upper arms, the 10th, 50th and 90th percentiles of the flexion angular distributions, elevation angles, and angular velocity distribution were used as exposure measures.
An iPhone application for upper arm posture and movement measurements
2017, Applied ErgonomicsCitation Excerpt :Jackson et al. (2015a) found similar effects, with differences of up to 25° for different accelerometer placements, one atop the deltoid muscle and the other below the insertion of the deltoid muscle. Dahlqvist et al. (2016), Hansson (2015) and Jackson et al. (2015b) discussed that these differences may be caused by different reference posture measurements, and by differences in the size of the accelerometer surface that is attached to the skin. Further research is needed in order to achieve common measurement protocols for results to be compared between studies.
Validity of a small low-cost triaxial accelerometer with integrated logger for uncomplicated measurements of postures and movements of head, upper back and upper arms
2016, Applied ErgonomicsCitation Excerpt :However, our experience shows a difference of <1° at instructed arm elevations of 90° (Hansson, 2015). In the current study, we followed the same instructions for arm elevations of 90° as in those 80 measurements that Hansson referred to in his Letter to the editor (Hansson, 2015). These instructions differ from those performed in Jackson et al.
Digging deeper into the assessment of upper arm elevation angles using standard inclinometry
2015, Applied ErgonomicsUpper arm elevation and repetitive shoulder movements: A general population job exposure matrix based on expert ratings and technical measurements
2016, Occupational and Environmental Medicine