Advertisement

Range of Rest Posture of Human Lower Limbs

  • Alessandro Naddeo
  • Nicola Cappetti
  • Mariarosaria Vallone
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 824)

Abstract

The most advocated schemes of comfort perception have proposed an objective method to evaluate “effects in the internal body” and “perceived effects”—the state of the art for comfort/discomfort evaluation. Postural comfort is one aspect of comfort/discomfort perception, and this current work adds to existing knowledge toward a more objectified posture evaluation for comfort. The authors have used the concept of Range of Rest Posture (RRP), as proposed by Apostolico et al. [1], useful for comfort evaluation. The study focused on the identification of RRP within the Comfort Range of Motion (CROM) for these human joints in the lower limbs: hip, knee, and ankle. The proposed method is based on extensive experimental work involving 114 healthy individuals (59 males and 55 females) ranging from 20 to 40 years old. The age range was narrowed to avoid an age-clustering of results due to inhomogeneity of the statistical sample. The experimental data were processed using statistical methods for identifying the RRP in the experimental CROM. Several Maximum Level of Comfort (MLC) positions were found within the RRP. These positions were among the most important information in the comfort evaluation analyses.

References

  1. 1.
    Apostolico A, Cappetti N, D’Oria C, Naddeo A, Sestri M (2014) Postural comfort evaluation: experimental identification of Range of Rest Posture for human articular joints. Int J Interact Des Manuf 8:109–120.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12008-013-0186-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pheasant S, Haslegrave CM (2006) Bodyspace: anthropometry, ergonomics, and the design of work. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mokdad M, Al-Ansari M (2009) Anthropometrics for the design of Bahraini school furniture. Int J Ind Ergon 39:728–735.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2009.02.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    McAtamney L, Corlett, N (2009) R.U.L.A. - A Rapid Upper Limb Assessment tool, pp 316–321Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hignett S, McAtamney L (2000) Rapid entire body assessment (REBA). Appl Ergon 31:201–205.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-6870(99)00039-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kee D, Karwowski W (2001) LUBA: an assessment technique for postural loading on the upper body based on joint motion discomfort and maximum holding time. Appl Ergon 32:357–366.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-6870(01)00006-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Moore JS, Garg A (1995) The strain index: a proposed method to analyze jobs for risk of distal upper extremity disorders. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 56:443–458.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15428119591016863CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Occhipinti E, Colombini D (1996) Proposta di un indice sintetico per la valutazione dell’esposizione a movimenti ripetitivi degli arti superiori (OCRA index). Med Lav 87:526–548Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Annarumma M, Pappalardo M, Naddeo A (2008) Methodology development of human task simulation as PLM solution related to OCRA ergonomic analysis. IFIP Int Fed Inf Process 277:19–29.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-09697-1_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Di Pardo AR, Sessa F, Naddeo A, Talamo L (2008) Methodology development for ergonomic analysis of work-cells in virtual environment. SAE Technical papers.  https://doi.org/10.4271/2008-01-1481
  11. 11.
    Naddeo A, Cappetti N, Califano R, Vallone M (2013) Manual assembly workstation redesign based on a new quantitative method for postural comfort evaluation. Appl Mech Mater 459:368–379.  https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.459.368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Valentin L, Gerling A, Aptel M, et al (2004) Validité opérationnelle l’OREGE (outil de repérage et d’évaluation des gestes)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Konz S (1982) NIOSH lifting guidelines. Am Ind Hygiene Assoc J 43:931–933CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sauter SL, Gottlieb MS, Jones KC, Dodson VN, Rohrer KM (1983) Job and health implications of VDT use: initial results of the Wisconsin-NIOSH study. Commun ACM 26:284–294.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2163.358098CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Waters TR, Putz-Anderson V, Garg A, Fine LJ (1993) Revised NIOSH equation for the design and evaluation of manual lifting tasks. Ergonomics 36:749–776CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Califano R, Naddeo A, Vink P (2017) The effect of human-mattress interface’s temperature on perceived thermal comfort. Appl Ergon 58:334–341.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2016.07.012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Derby MM, Pasch RM (2017) Effects of low humidity on health, comfort & IEQ. ASHRAE J 59:44–51Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Naddeo A, D‘Ambrosio D, Antonini B (2018) Task analysis and comfort evaluation through simulations: Differences between subjective perceptions and simulated data in the case of car-hood lifting. Adv Intell Syst Comput 605:272–285.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60828-0_28Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Galinsky T, Swanson N, Sauter S, Dunkin R, Hurrell J, Schleifer L (2007) Supplementary breaks and stretching exercises for data entry operators: a follow up field study. Am J Ind Med 50:519–527.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ajim.20472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hamberg-van Reenen HH, Van Der Beek AJ, Blatter BM, Van Der Grinten MP, Van Mechelen W, Bongers PM (2008) Does musculoskeletal discomfort at work predict future musculoskeletal pain? Ergonomics 51:637–648.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00140130701743433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Naddeo A, Memoli S (2009) Postural comfort inside a car: development of an innovative model to evaluate the discomfort level. SAE Int J Passeng Cars Mech Syst 2:1065–1070.  https://doi.org/10.4271/2009-01-1163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Helander MG, Zhang L (1997) Field studies of comfort and discomfort in sitting. Ergonomics 40:895–915.  https://doi.org/10.1080/001401397187739CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Moes NCCM (2005) Analysis of sitting discomfort, a review, pp. 200–204Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Vink P, Hallbeck S (2012) Editorial: comfort and discomfort studies demonstrate the need for a new model. Appl Ergon 43:271–276.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2011.06.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Naddeo A, Cappetti N, Vallone M, Califano R (2014) New trend line of research about comfort evaluation: proposal of a framework for weighing and evaluating contributes coming from cognitive, postural and physiologic comfort perceptions. In: Vink P (ed) Advances in social and organizational factors. Published by “Advances in Human Factors and Ergonomics” conferenceGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Vink P (2014) The sweetness of discomfort: designing the journeyGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Naddeo A, Cappetti N, Califano R, Vallone M (2015) The role of expectation in comfort perception: the mattresses’ evaluation experience. Procedia Manuf 3:4784–4791.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2015.07.582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Tilley, AR (2002) The measure of man and woman: human factors in design. vol. 1. WileyGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Cappetti N, D’Oria C, Naddeo A (2011). New comfort evaluation criteria: application on movie-theatre design. In: Proceedings of the IMProVe, pp 01–06Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Fagarasanu M, Kumar S, Narayan Y (2004) Measurement of angular wrist neutral zone and forearm muscle activity. Clin Biomech 19:671–677.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2004.05.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Christensen HW, Nilsson N (1999) The ability to reproduce the neutral zero position of the head. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 22:26–28.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0161-4754(99)70102-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Naddeo A, Cappetti N, D’Oria C (2015) Proposal of a new quantitative method for postural comfort evaluation. Int J Ind Ergon 48:25–35.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2015.03.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Trapanese S, Naddeo A, Cappetti N (2016) A preventive evaluation of perceived postural comfort in car-cockpit design: differences between the postural approach and the accurate muscular simulation under different load conditions in the case of steering-wheel usage. SAE Technical papers 2016-April.  https://doi.org/10.4271/2016-01-1434
  34. 34.
    Cappetti N, Naddeo A, Soldovieri VM, Vitillo M (2018) A study on the correlation between the perceived comfort and the muscular activity, using virtual simulation techniques. Appl ErgonomicsGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hallaçeli H, Uruç, V, Uysal HH, özden R, Hallaçeli Ç, Soyuer F, Parpucu TI, Yengil E, Cavlak U (2014) Normal hip, knee and ankle range of motion in the Turkish population. Acta Orthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcica 48:37–42.  https://doi.org/10.3944/aott.2014.3113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (1965) Joint motion: method of measuring and recording. Churchill LivingstoneGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Svenningsen S, Terjesen T, Auflem M, Berg V (1989) Hip motion related to age and sex. Acta Orthop 60:97–100.  https://doi.org/10.3109/17453678909150103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Vallone M, Naddeo A, Cappetti N, Califano R (2015) Comfort driven redesign methods: an application to mattresses production systems. Open Mech Eng J 9:492–507.  https://doi.org/10.2174/1874155X01509010492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Naddeo A, Barba S, Ferrero Francia IF (2013) Propuesta de un nuevo método no invasivo para el análisis postural con aplicaciones de fotogrametría 4d. In: Actos del XI Congreso Iberoamericano de Ingenieria Mecanica, pp 3654–3664Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alessandro Naddeo
    • 1
  • Nicola Cappetti
    • 1
  • Mariarosaria Vallone
    • 1
  1. 1.University of SalernoFiscianoItaly

Personalised recommendations