Validity of Wearable Sensors at the Shoulder Joint: Combining Wireless Electromyography Sensors and Inertial Measurement Units to Perform Physical Workplace Assessments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Workplace adaptation is the preferred method of intervention to diminish risk factors associated with the development of work-related shoulder disorders. However, the majority of the workplace assessments performed are subjective (e.g., questionnaires). Quantitative assessments are required to support workplace adaptations. The aims of this study are to assess the concurrent validity of inertial measurement units (IMUs; MVN, Xsens) in comparison to a motion capture system (Vicon) during lifting tasks, and establish the discriminative validity of a wireless electromyography (EMG) system for the evaluation of muscle activity. Methods: Sixteen participants performed 12 simple tasks (shoulder flexion, abduction, scaption) and 16 complex lifting tasks (lifting crates of different weights at different heights). A Delsys Trigno EMG system was used to record anterior and middle deltoids’ EMG activity, while the Xsens and Vicon simultaneously recorded shoulder kinematics. Results: For IMUs, correlation coefficients were high (simple task: >0.968; complex task: >0.84) and RMSEs were low (simple task: <6.72°; complex task: <11.5°). For EMG, a significant effect of weight, height and a weight x height interaction (anterior: p < 0.001; middle: p < 0.03) were observed for RMS EMG activity. Conclusions: These results suggest that wireless EMG and IMUs are valid units that can be used to measure physical demand in workplace assessments.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".