Advertisement

Systemic Body: Ergonomics of the Prevention

  • Georgia Victor
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 824)

Abstract

This work results from the health context in the productive world, related to the seated activity and the excessive use of everyday technological objects, that minimize day-to-day gestures, establishing predatory relationships in motor organization and body structure, which impose radical changes on human nature and health implications as a whole. Following this line, this work brings a problematization: theoretical comparison on the understanding of what comfort means in the visions of corporal therapies X of ergonomics – an important parameter in the process of thinking design and in the definition of product form - a conceptual misconception makes the success of an entire work impossible. The hypothesis that feeds this work is that a closer look at the mechanical aspect of the dynamics of the psychomotor organization of the human structure, as a whole, can influence the projective reasoning of professionals who evaluate, validate, conceive and develop products. For that, I developed in my PhD research Design for Health, biomimetic models of the human body, built on biotensegrity technology, constructive factors of structure and organization of complex systems and integrated movement, which support the understanding of the human motor system, through muscular chains of movement. It is able to leverage innovative processes by contributing significantly to the transformation of the state of knowledge by establishing new mental models of cognition, which encourage innovation processes when applied in other areas of knowledge, directly influencing thinking design, ergonomics, but also in the areas of biomedical, physiotherapeutic practices, and in high performance sports.

Keywords

Biotensegrity Biomimetic Models of the human body 

References

  1. Godelieve DS (1995) Cadeias musculares articulares: o método GDS. Summus Editorial, São PauloGoogle Scholar
  2. Ingber DE (1993) Cellular tensegrity: defining new rules of biological design that govern the cytoskeleton. J Cell Sci 104(pt 3):613–627. http://jcs.biologists.org/content/104/3/613.long. Accessed 25 Apr 2012
  3. Levin SM (1981) The icosahedron as a biologic support system. In: Proceedings of the 34th annual conference on engineering in medicine and biology, vol 23, p 404Google Scholar
  4. Piret S, Béziers, M-M (1992) A coordenação motora: aspecto mecânico da organização psicomotora humana. Summus, São PauloGoogle Scholar
  5. Snelson K (1965) Continuous tension, discontinuous compression structures. US patent 3.69.611, 16 de Fevereiro 1965Google Scholar
  6. Swanson LR, Biotensegrity: a unifying theory of biological architecture with applications to osteopathic practice, education, and research—a review and analysis J Am Osteop Assoc 113:34–52Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.MedpucRio de JaneiroBrazil

Personalised recommendations