Elsevier

Journal of Biomechanics

Volume 49, Issue 13, 6 September 2016, Pages 2938-2945
Journal of Biomechanics

A biomechanical comparison between expert and novice manual materials handlers using a multi-joint EMG-assisted optimization musculoskeletal model of the lumbar spine

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2016.07.009Get rights and content

Abstract

Expertise is a key factor modulating the risk of low back disorders (LBD). Through years of practice in the workplace, the typical expert acquires high level specific skills and maintains a clean record of work-related injuries. Ergonomic observations of manual materials handling (MMH) tasks show that expert techniques differ from those of novices, leading to the idea that expert techniques are safer. Biomechanical studies of MMH tasks performed by experts/novices report mixed results for kinematic/kinetic variables, evoking potential internal effect of expertise. In the context of series of box transfers simulated by actual workers, detailed internal loads predicted by a multiple-joint EMG-assisted optimization lumbar spine model are compared between experts and novices. The results confirmed that the distribution of internal moments are modulated by worker expertise. Experts flexed less their lumbar spine and exerted more active muscle forces while novices relied more on passive resistance of the muscles and ligamentous spine. More specifically for novices, the passive contributions came from global extensor muscles, selected local extensor muscles, and passive structures of the lumbar spine (ligaments and discs). The distinctive distribution of internal forces was not concomitant with a similar effect on joint forces, these forces being dependent on external loading which was equivalent between experts and novices. From a safety standpoint, the present results suggest that experts were more efficient than novices in partitioning internal moment contributions to balance net (external) loading. Thus, safer handling practices might be seen as a result of experts׳ experience.

Introduction

There is a clear relationship between low back disorders (LBD) and mechanical load (National Research Council, 2001). Manual materials handling (MMH) is a work activity associated with LBD because it can generate high mechanical load on the low back. A chief modifying factor of LBD risks is expertise (Marras, 2006), an expert being a person with high-level specific skills gained through years of practice and a clean record of work-related injuries. Ergonomic observations of MMH tasks indicate that expert workers have acquired techniques that differ from those employed by novices (Authier et al., 1996), generally leading to the speculation that expert techniques should be safer. Comprehensive measurements on experts are thus needed to create benchmark data to document their techniques and ultimately contribute in the development of MMH training programs (Plamondon et al., 2010). However, biomechanical comparisons of MMH techniques between expert and novice report mixed results on kinematic/kinetic variables (Lee and Nussbaum, 2012, Lee and Nussbaum, 2013, Plamondon et al., 2010). In the study of Plamondon et al. (2010), experts bend significantly less their trunk but their lumbar joint net moments are similar to those of novices. Hence, potential internal effect of expertise is evoked without detailed musculoskeletal analyses.

The importance of lumbar spine musculoskeletal models to assess spinal loads, stability, and risk of injury is well recognized (see Reeves and Cholewicki (2003) for a review). In MMH situations however, only novices or inexperienced subjects are tested. To our knowledge, there has been no study with such models on actual expert workers. The prediction, with sufficient biological integrity, of muscle forces and spinal loads to compare expert vs novice requires an EMG-driven model (Cholewicki et al., 1995, Gagnon et al., 2001). Moreover, a full multiple-joint musculoskeletal model of the lumbar spine should be resolved to predict coherent muscle and joint forces (Arjmand et al., 2007, Gagnon et al., 2011, Stokes and Gardner-Morse, 1995).

Consequently, the current study aims to compare experts and novices in the context of series of box transfers simulated by actual workers (Plamondon et al., 2010). A lumbar spine musculoskeletal model using a multiple-joint EMG-assisted optimization resolution method (Gagnon et al., 2011) was formulated to assess spinal loads, muscle forces, and passive spine resistance. The premise of the study is that, in equivalent external loading situations, experts use safer and more efficient techniques. It is hypothesized that experts (1) use less passive muscle forces and spine resistance, (2) deploy more active muscle forces, and (3) sustain smaller lumbar spine joint forces.

Section snippets

Experimental study

Details on data collection and processing are described elsewhere (Plamondon et al., 2010). Ten male experts (age 39.1 yr SD 10.0; mass 71.8 kg SD 9.5; height 1.72 m SD 0.08) and 10 male novices (age 23.3 yr SD 3.2; mass 69.0 kg SD 7.3; height 1.74 m SD 0.05) with complete EMG dataset were retained for the present study. Four tasks were selected (Fig. 1) to compare, in addition to expertise (Expert vs Novice), the effect of the height of lifting/deposit (H1: ground level vs H4: top of the pile) and

Results

For brevity, only the major effects and interactions with expertise are reported here. Additional results are included in the Electronic Supplementary material as well as all tables with a number ended by S.

Discussion

Results of the present study confirmed that the distribution of internal moments are modulated by worker expertise for the investigated MMH tasks. Experts flexed less their trunk and exerted more active muscle forces (hypothesis 2 accepted) while novices relied more on passive resistance of the muscles and ligamentous spine (hypothesis 1 accepted). For novices, the additional passive contributions came from global extensor muscles (ICPT and LGPT), local extensor muscles (LGPL, MUF and ICPL) and

Conclusion

In summary, the present results show that experts were more efficient than novices in partitioning internal moment contributions to balance net (external) loading. Thus, safer handling practices might be seen as a result of experience of experts. Limited use of passive tissues by experts could be associated to their good back injury record, an inclusion criterion for these subjects. Consequently, novices in manual material handling should be exposed as early as possible to proper principles,

Conflict of interest statement

There is no conflict of interest in this study.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by grants from the Robert-Sauvé Occupational Health and Safety Research Institute (IRSST 2010-0023) of Quebec and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC 130827). Authors gratefully acknowledge Erik Salazar for assistance in post-processing of experimental data.

References (27)

Cited by (22)

  • Using real-time feedback of L5/S1 compression force based on markerless optical motion capture to improve the lifting technique in manual materials handling

    2022, International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics
    Citation Excerpt :

    However, there is no consistent evidence of the effectiveness of a particular lifting technique and it is known that no single lifting technique can be advised for all lifting conditions (Burgess-Limerick, 2003; Kingma et al., 2006; Straker, 2003; van Dieën et al., 1999; Washmuth et al., 2022). Such studies may show that the actual lifting technique may be less important than the lifting conditions, such as load placement, time pressure and experience, or small measures like shifting or tilting the load (Faber et al., 2011; Gagnon et al., 2016; Marras et al., 2006; Riley et al., 2015; van Dieën et al., 1999). This raises the question of whether real-time visual feedback of L5/S1 compression forces based on markerless optical motion capture provides appropriate MMH instructions to improve the lifting technique in MMH.

View all citing articles on Scopus
View full text