Wearable Inertial Sensors for Objective Kinematic Assessments: A Brief Overview

Details

• Personal Author:
  Cavuoto L ; Chen H ; Schall MC Jr.
• Description:
  Approximately 1.71 billion people were affected by debilitating musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) in 2019 (WHO 2021). The personal and societal burdens of MSDs are well-documented and considerable, and immediate action is needed to address their underlying risk factors (Briggs et al. 2018, 2020; Cieza et al. 2020; Wu et al. 2020). Occupational exposure to kinematic risk factors such as non-neutral postures and high movement speeds have been associated with the development of MSDs (NRC-IOM 2001; Punnett and Wegman 2004; Driscoll et al. 2014; van der Molen et al. 2017; Balogh et al. 2019). Accurately measuring worker kinematics and reducing exposure to harmful movements through intervention is one of several potential paths to preventing MSDs (Buckle and Devereux 2002; Mathiassen et al. 2015; Howard et al. 2022). Accelerometers (a.k.a. inclinometers) emerged in the 1980s and 1990s as a preferred method for objectively quantifying some worker kinematics and estimating energy expenditure in epidemiological research (Bussmann et al. 1995; Li and Buckle 1999; Bassett 2000; Janz 2006). Measurements from accelerometers may be combined with angular velocity measurements from gyroscopes and local magnetic field information from a magnetometer to provide more accurate kinematic assessments than accelerometers alone (Luinge and Veltink 2005; Madgwick 2010). This complementary arrangement of sensors in a single device is generally known as an inertial measurement unit (IMU). The use of IMUs in ergonomics has increased substantially in recent years, particularly among researchers (Lim and D'Souza 2020). Applications range from characterizing non-neutral postures such as extreme shoulder elevation or trunk flexion and associated movement speeds (Fethke et al. 2020; Schall et al. 2021) to classifying types of materials handling tasks (Hosseinian et al. 2019; Porta et al. 2021) to monitoring the development of fatigue based on gait kinematics and smoothness of motion (jerk) (Zhang et al. 2014; Maman et al. 2017; Baghdadi et al. 2021; Hostler et al. 2021). Readers are directed to three recent reviews that detail the applications of IMUs for ergonomic assessment (Ranavolo et al. 2018; Lim and D'Souza 2020; Stefana et al. 2021). Occupational safety and health professionals have reported interest in using wearable IMUs to assess and monitor kinematic risk factors at work (Schall et al. 2018). Several companies sell systems of IMU sensors with proprietary software to facilitate "plug-and-play" kinematic assessment (e.g., Xsens MTw Awinda (Paulich et al. 2018); APDM Opal (Horak et al. 2011)). IMUs have also been shown to perform accurately when operated independently with open-source resources (Chen et al. 2020; Nazarahari and Rouhani 2021). Despite their potential value to organizations and the expanding body of studies supporting their efficacy, occupational safety and health professionals have reported concerns that the data provided by IMUs may be perceived as insufficiently accurate for use in their workplaces (Reid et al. 2017; Schall et al. 2018). Their concerns may result from misconceptions regarding the fundamentals of IMU operation, a potential lack of understanding regarding how IMU systems are often evaluated, and limited familiarity with real-world applications. This commentary paper aims to provide a brief overview of the critical principles of IMU operation for performing kinematic assessments. We intend to draw attention to resources and recommendations helpful in using IMUs to support wearable inertial sensors for objective kinematic assessment in the workplace to an audience that may be less familiar with the technology. [Description provided by NIOSH]
• Subjects:
  Biomechanical Phenomena Ergonomics Musculoskeletal Diseases Occupational Health Safety
• Keywords:
  Author Keywords: Ergonomics Biomechanics Emerging Technology Exposure Assessment Inertial Measurement Unit MSD Musculoskeletal Disorders Sensors Wearables Wearable Technologies
• ISSN:
  1545-9624
• Document Type:
  Text
• Funding:
  Grant
• Genre:
  Journal Article
• Place as Subject:
  Alabama ; New York ; OSHA Region 2 ; OSHA Region 4
• CIO:
  National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)
• Topic:
  Workplace Safety & Health
• Location:
  North America
• Volume:
  19
• Issue:
  9
• NIOSHTIC Number:
  nn:20066578
• Citation:
  J Occup Environ Hyg 2022 Sep; 19(9):501-508
• Contact Point Address:
  Mark C. Schall Jr., Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849, USA
• Email:
  mark-schall@auburn.edu
• Federal Fiscal Year:
  2022
• Performing Organization:
  University of Alabama at Birmingham
• Peer Reviewed:
  True
• Start Date:
  20050701
• Source Full Name:
  Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene
• End Date:
  20270630
• Collection(s):
  National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
• Main Document Checksum:
  urn:sha-512:5ec3d83fedd92c5383f9101c2f8e98211bf6987eb1c991e4d2231e864a919e639889e66d881cd6e3ce1f6a45673aaba19714a327de45391bd4d1d15deaee710f
• Download URL:
  https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/231127/cdc_231127_DS1.pdf
• File Type:
  [PDF - 1.38 MB ]