PubMed HealthSearch

PubMed · 1800110

Quantifying variation in physical load using exposure-vs-time data.

Abstract

Variation has in recent years become an important concept in the analysis of loads on the locomotor system in occupational life. Studies of controlled variation in isometric exercise have concentrated on the effects of introducing pauses at regular intervals into an otherwise constant load. A complete description of the cyclic character of such regimens requires a set of three parameters. We suggest the use of the set mean load/cycle time/duty cycle. The design of laboratory studies should more often be based upon the activity patterns found in occupational life. In studies observing exposure, the variation concept introduces problems concerning how to define and how to quantify 'variation'. It is shown that present methods (APDF analysis and contraction frequency analysis) individually fail to pick up important aspects of variation. A new method for exposure variation analysis (EVA) is proposed. Examples are presented of EVA performed on vocational EMG registrations.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

S E Mathiassen, J Winkel. 1991. Quantifying variation in physical load using exposure-vs-time data.. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139108964889

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Gain effects on performance using a head-controlled computer input device.

The purpose of this study was to use a Fitts' task to (1) determine how control-display gain influences performance using a head-controlled computer input device; (2) compare relative sensitivity to gain and optimal gain between head control and hand/arm control; and (3) investigate control-display gain interactions with other task factors including target width, movement amplitude and direction. The task was a discrete target acquisition task using circular targets of 2.9 mm, 8.1 mm, and 23.5 mm, movement amplitudes of 24.3 mm and 61.7 mm, and eight radial directions including 0 degrees, 45 degrees, 90 degrees, 135 degrees, 180 degrees, 225 degrees, 270 degrees, and 315 degrees. Each device was operated at four gain levels. Ten subjects participated. The results indicated that gain had a significant effect on movement time for both types of pointing devices and exhibited local minimums. Discrete target acquisition at all gains was aptly described using Fitts' Law for both input devices. The mouse gain resulting in minimum movement time and RMS cursor deviation was between 1.0 and 2.0. The minimum movement time and RMS cursor deviation for the head-controlled pointer occurred at a gain between 0.3 and 0.6. Average movement time at the optimal head-controlled pointer gain had a slope of 169 ms/bit and was more than 76% greater than at the optimal mouse gain with a slope of 135 ms/bit. In addition, average RMS displacement was more than 27% greater for the head-controlled pointer at its optimal gain setting than for the mouse. Gain had the greatest effect for small target widths and long movement amplitudes using the head-controlled pointer. Average movement time increased 37% when increasing the head-controlled pointer gain from 0.6 to 1.2 for the small target width, but only increased 0.3% when increasing gain for the large target width. Average movement time also increased 12% when decreasing the head-controlled pointer gain from 0.3 to 0.15 for the long movement amplitude, but decreased 0.3% when decreasing gain for the short movement amplitude.

Ergonomics