Method for Movement and Gesture Assessment (MMGA) in Ergonomics

Andreoni, Giuseppe; Mazzola, Marco; Ciani, Oriana; Zambetti, Marta; Romero, Marcelo; Costa, Fiammetta; Preatoni, Ezio

doi:10.1007/978-3-642-02809-0_62

Cited by 24 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Nevertheless, ergonomic studies based on VR are not fully reliable because interaction devices modify postures and motions (Pontonnier et al, 2013), and force-feedback devices cannot render real exertions, which is an issue for ergonomics studies. Digital manikins, in contrast, incorporate ergonomic indicators based on the analysis of static postures, and thus cannot fully take the overall movement performed by an operator into account, although doing so would improve the precision of the ergonomic evaluation (Andreoni et al, 2009(Andreoni et al, , 2011. DHM are also incompatible with the incorporation of potential variants in movement, although it has been shown that the presence of obstacles impeding the subject's trajectories modifies movement variability (Jacquier-Bret, 2009).…”

Section: Intrinsic Movement Variability and Design Engineeringmentioning

confidence: 96%

Intrinsic movement variability at work. How long is the path from motor control to design engineering?

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For several years, increasing numbers of studies have highlighted the existence of movement variability. Before that, it was neglected in movement analysis and it is still almost completely ignored in workstation design. This article reviews motor control theories and factors influencing movement execution, and indicates how intrinsic movement variability is part of task completion. These background clarifications should help ergonomists and workstation designers to gain a better understanding of these concepts, which can then be used to improve design tools. We also question which techniques--kinematics, kinetics or muscular activity--and descriptors are most appropriate for describing intrinsic movement variability and for integration into design tools. By this way, simulations generated by designers for workstation design should be closer to the real movements performed by workers. This review emphasises the complexity of identifying, describing and processing intrinsic movement variability in occupational activities.

show abstract

Section: Intrinsic Movement Variability and Design Engineeringmentioning

confidence: 96%

Intrinsic movement variability at work. How long is the path from motor control to design engineering?

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In order to evaluate the dynamic gestures, current studies have proposed various comfort evaluation models [21–25]. Andreoni et al [22] present a MMGA model for the ergonomic ranking of motor tasks. The model is derived from the LUBA model that is evaluated by the static gesture.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mechanical Energy Expenditure-based Comfort Evaluation Model for Gesture Interaction

Wang

Qin

Chen

et al. 2018

Computational Intelligence and Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As an advanced interaction mode, the gesture has been widely used for the human-computer interaction (HCI). The paper proposes a comfort evaluation model based on the mechanical energy expenditure (MEE) and the mechanical efficiency (ME) to predict the comfort of gestures. The proposed comfort evaluation model takes nineteen muscles and seven degrees of freedom into consideration based on the data of muscles and joints and is capable of simulating the MEE and the ME of both static and dynamic gestures. The comfort scores (CSs) can be therefore calculated by normalizing and assigning different decision weights to the MEE and the ME. Compared with the traditional comfort prediction methods based on measurement, on the one hand, the proposed comfort evaluation model makes it possible for providing a quantitative value for the comfort of gestures without using electromyography (EMG) or other measuring devices; on the other hand, from the ergonomic perspective, the results provide an intuitive indicator to predict which act has the higher risk of fatigue or injury for joints and muscles. Experiments are conducted to validate the effectiveness of the proposed model. According to the comparison result among the proposed comfort evaluation model, the model based on the range of motion (ROM) and the model based on the method for movement and gesture assessment (MMGA), a slight difference can be found due to the ignorance of dynamic gestures and the relative kinematic characteristics during the movements of dynamic gestures. Therefore, considering the feedback of perceived effects and gesture recognition rate in HCI, designers can achieve a better optimization for the gesture design by making use of the proposed comfort evaluation model.

show abstract

“…There are numerous ergonomic assessment methods of manual task exists in the market. For example, REBA, RULA, LUBA, OWAS, PATH, PEO and QEC method [21][22][23]. The Rapid Upper Limb Assessment (RULA) index is one of the most common and cited tools for evaluating the ergonomic risk of WMSDs [22,24].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ergonomic Design Improvement of Pedal Thresher: An Approach Combining Digital Human Modelling and Response Surface Analysis

Sm¹,

Patel²,

Kn³

2017

J Ergonomics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Method for Movement and Gesture Assessment (MMGA) in Ergonomics

Cited by 24 publications

References 6 publications

Intrinsic movement variability at work. How long is the path from motor control to design engineering?

Intrinsic movement variability at work. How long is the path from motor control to design engineering?

Mechanical Energy Expenditure-based Comfort Evaluation Model for Gesture Interaction

Ergonomic Design Improvement of Pedal Thresher: An Approach Combining Digital Human Modelling and Response Surface Analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About