Are hybrid sit–stand postures a good compromise between sitting and standing?

Potential alternatives for conventional sitting and standing postures are hybrid sit-stand postures (i.e. perching). The purposes of this study were (i) to identify where lumbopelvic and pelvic angles deviate from sitting and standing and (ii) to use these breakpoints to define three distinct postural phases: sitting, perching, and standing, in order to examine differences in muscle activations and ground reaction forces between phases. Twenty-four participants completed 19 1-min static trials, from sitting (90°) to standing (180°), sequentially in 5°trunk–thigh angle increments. The perching phase was determined to be 145–175° for males and 160–175° for females. For both sexes, knee extensor activity was lower in standing compared to perching or sitting (p < .01). Anterior–posterior forces were the highest in perching (p < .001), requiring ～15% of body-weight. Chair designs aimed at reducing the lower limb demands within 115–170° trunk–thigh angle may improve the feasibility of sustaining the perched posture.

Practitioner summary: Individuals who develop low back pain in sitting or standing may benefit from hybrid sit-stand postures (perching), yet kinematic and kinetic changes associated with these postures have not been investigated. Perching can improve lumbar posture at a cost of increased lower limb demands, suggesting potential avenues for chair design improvement.

Abbreviations: A/P: anterior-posterior; M/L: medial-lateral; LBP: low back pain; EMG: electromyography; TES: thoracic erector spinae; LES: lumbar erector spinae; VMO: vastus medialis obliquus; MVC: maximum voluntary contraction; ASIS: anterior superior iliac spine; PSIS: posterior superior iliac spine; BW: body weight; RMSE: root mean square error; SD: standard deviation; ROM: range of motion     

Low back joint loading and kinematics during standing and unsupported sitting

The aim was to examine lumbar spine kinematics, spinal joint loads and trunk muscle activation patterns during a prolonged (2 h) period of sitting. This information is necessary to assist the ergonomist in designing work where posture variation is possible—particularly between standing and various styles of sitting. Joint loads were predicted with a highly detailed anatomical biomechanical model (that incorporated 104 muscles, passive ligaments and intervertebral discs), which utilized biological signals of spine posture and muscle electromyograms (EMG) from each trial of each subject. Sitting resulted in significantly higher (p< 0.001) low back compressive loads (mean±SD 1698±467 N) than those experienced by the lumbar spine during standing (1076±243 N). Subjects were equally divided into adopting one of two sitting strategies: a single ‘static’ or a ‘dynamic’ multiple posture approach. Within each individual, standing produced a distinctly diVerent spine posture compared with sitting, and standing spine postures did not overlap with flexion postures adopted in sitting when spine postures were averaged across all eight subjects. A rest component (as noted in an amplitude probability distribution function from the EMG) was present for all muscles monitored in both sitting and standing tasks. The upper and lower erector spinae muscle groups exhibited a shifting to higher levels of activation during sitting. There were no clear muscle activation level diVerences in the individuals who adopted diVerent sitting strategies. Standing appears to be a good rest from sitting given the reduction in passive tissue forces. However, the constant loading with little dynamic movement which characterizes both standing and sitting would provide little rest/change for muscular activation levels or low back loading.     

Stabilisation times after transitions to standing from different working postures

Transitioning to standing after maintaining working postures may result in imbalance and could elicit a fall. The objective of this study was to quantify the magnitude of imbalance using a stabilisation time metric. Forty-five male participants completed three replications of conditions created by one of four working postures (bent at waist, squat, forward kneel, reclined kneel) and three durations within posture. Participants transitioned to quiet standing at a self-selected pace. Stabilisation time, based on changes in centre of pressure velocity, was used to indicate the initiation of steady state while standing. Stabilisation time was significantly affected by static postures but not duration within posture. The largest stabilisation times resulted from transitions initiated from a bent at waist posture. The smallest were associated with the kneeling postures, which were not significantly different from each other. Findings may lead to recommendations for redesign of tasks, particularly in high-risk environments such as construction.

Statement of Relevance: Task performance on the jobsite often requires individuals to maintain non-erect postures. This study suggests that working posture affects stabilisation during transition to a standing position. Bending at the waist and squatting resulted in longer stabilisation times, whereas both kneeling postures evaluated resulted in greater imbalance but for a shorter duration.     

Posture analysis among Flemish secondary school teachers: difference between the use of chalkboards and electronic school boards during classroom teaching

The aim of this study was to (i) make a posture analysis of teachers during theoretical classroom teaching; (ii) to estimate the risk for the development of musculoskeletal problems (MSP); (iii) test the hypotheses that an electronic school board (EB) has more ergonomic advantages for teachers. Thirty-five secondary school teachers, of which 15 used an EB and 20 used chalkboards, were selected by convenience sampling and filmed during 30 min of a theoretical course. Posture analysis of back, arms, legs and risk assessment was performed using the Ovako Working Posture Analysis System. Most of the teachers’ postures did not indicate a higher risk for MSP. However, some postures may be harmful when accumulated for several hours of teaching a day; especially, long periods of standing and standing with a bended back. Results also indicated that currently the use of an EB does not improve teachers’ posture.

Practitioner Summary: The relationship between objectively measured physical work load and risk for injuries among teachers was not analysed so far. In this study teachers’ posture was analysed using the OWAS method. Prolonged standing and forward bending were identified as risk postures. Also, using an electronic school board currently does not improve posture.     

The effect of age on in-vivo spine stiffness,postures and discomfort responses during prolonged sitting exposures

Many industrialised working populations are ageing and prolonged sitting exposures are prevalent across occupational sectors. The purpose of this work was to determine the effect of age and sex on passive spine stiffness, postures and discomfort in response to seated work. A total of 34 participants were recruited, with 17 older adults with an average age of (standard deviation) 63.7 (±3.9) years and 17 younger adults aged 23.8 (±5.0) years. Participants were asked to sit continuously for 90?min while typing. Baseline passive spine stiffness was higher in older adults at 40% flexion compared to younger adults (p?=?.0233). Older adults sat in less normalised flexion, at 33.4% (±16.4) compared to 60.9% (±20.2) in the younger group (p?=?.0003). Discomfort was higher among older adults in the neck, right shoulder and middle back regions (p?<?.0086). An understanding of age-specific responses to workplace exposures is essential to determine whether age-specific interventions are warranted.

 

Practitioner summary: Older adults had higher passive spine stiffness and sat with less flexion during prolonged sitting. Discomfort was higher among older adults and occurred earlier in the simulation compared to younger participants, indicating that interventions, such as walking breaks may need to be implemented earlier during sitting for aged workers.     

Naturalistic data collection of head posture during smartphone use

Association between smartphone use and head-down tilt posture has not yet been quantitatively evaluated in natural settings. This study aimed to objectively assess the angle and duration of head-down tilt posture of smartphone users during a typical working day via naturalistic data collection. Thirty-one college students conducted their typical school activities while their head posture and smartphone-app usage records were collected simultaneously for 8?hours. Participants spent 125.9?minutes (median usage duration) on their smartphones with significantly larger head-down tilt (p?<?.05) than when they were not using the phone. Head tilt angle greater than 30° was found to be more common when using the phone, while head tilt less than 20° was more common when they were not using the phone. Study findings provide empirical evidence that supports an association between the duration of smartphone use and the intensity of head-down tilt posture.

Practitioner Summary: Head postures of young smartphone users were quantified for 8?hours continuously during a typical workday using a wearable sensor. Participants spent more time in larger head-down tilt postures (greater than 30°) when they were using their smartphones as compared to when they were not using them.     

Low back joint loading and kinematics during standing and unsupported sitting

The aim was to examine lumbar spine kinematics, spinal joint loads and trunk muscle activation patterns during a prolonged (2 h) period of sitting. This information is necessary to assist the ergonomist in designing work where posture variation is possible -- particularly between standing and various styles of sitting. Joint loads were predicted with a highly detailed anatomical biomechanical model (that incorporated 104 muscles, passive ligaments and intervertebral discs), which utilized biological signals of spine posture and muscle electromyograms (EMG) from each trial of each subject. Sitting resulted in significantly higher (p<0.001) low back compressive loads (mean +/- SD 1698 +/- 467 N) than those experienced by the lumbar spine during standing (1076 +/- 243 N). Subjects were equally divided into adopting one of two sitting strategies: a single 'static' or a 'dynamic' multiple posture approach. Within each individual, standing produced a distinctly different spine posture compared with sitting, and standing spine postures did not overlap with flexion postures adopted in sitting when spine postures were averaged across all eight subjects. A rest component (as noted in an amplitude probability distribution function from the EMG) was present for all muscles monitored in both sitting and standing tasks. The upper and lower erector spinae muscle groups exhibited a shifting to higher levels of activation during sitting. There were no clear muscle activation level differences in the individuals who adopted different sitting strategies. Standing appears to be a good rest from sitting given the reduction in passive tissue forces. However, the constant loading with little dynamic movement which characterizes both standing and sitting would provide little rest/change for muscular activation levels or low back loading.     

Gender difference in mobile phone use and the impact of digital device exposure on neck posture

This cross-sectional study aimed to identify gender differences in the cervical postures when young adults were using mobile phones, as well as the correlations between the postures and the digital devices use (computer and mobile phone). Questionnaires regarding the habits of computer and mobile phone use were administrated to 429 subjects aged from 17 to 33 years old (19.75 ± 2.58 years old). Subjects were instructed to stand habitually and use a mobile phone as in daily life; the sagittal head and cervical postures were measured by head flexion, neck flexion angle and gaze angle. Male participants had a significantly larger head flexion angle (96.41° ± 12.23° vs. 93.57° ± 12.62°, p = 0.018) and neck flexion angle (51.92° ± 9.55° vs. 47.09° ± 9.45°, p < 0.001) than females. There were significant differences in head (F = 3.62, p = 0.014) and neck flexion (F = 3.99, p = 0.009) between different amounts of computer use.

Practitioner Summary: We investigated possible gender differences in head and neck postures of young adults using mobile phones, as well as the potential correlations between these postures and digital device use. We found that males displayed larger head and neck flexion angles than females, which were associated with the amount of computer use.     

An electromyographic analysis of seated and standing lifting tasks

The objective of this project was to compare the muscular effort exerted during manual lifting tasks performed in standing versus seated posture. Six male undergraduate and graduate students performed 12 different static and dynamic lifts in both sitting and standing positions. During each effort electromyographic (EMG) data were collected on four muscles groups (low back, upper back, shoulder, and abdominals). Four contractions were designed to elicit maximum muscular effort in the four groups being monitored. The remaining data were then expressed as a percentage of maximum EMG. Each subject performed the following: maximum static lift when sitting; maximum static lift when standing; sitting, static lift with 15·9 kg; standing, static lift with 15·9 kg; dynamic sit-forward lift with 15·9 kg, dynamic stand-forward lift with 15·9 kg, dynamic sit-twist with 15·9 kg, dynamic stand-vertical lift with 15·9 kg. Each of the lifts was performed with a wooden tray with slotted handles. Root mean square (RMS) values of the EMG data were calculated for three second periods. EMG activity in the low back, upper back, and shoulder was greater during sitting lifting than during standing lifting. The sit-twist lift resulted in the highest EMG in the abdominal muscles. Dynamic lifts resulted in more muscle activity than did static lifts. From these data it was concluded that sitting-lifting results in greater stress in the low back, upper back, and shoulders than does lifting while standing.     

Sagittal plane lumbar loading when navigating an obstacle and carrying a load

The current study quantified lumbar loading while carrying an anterior load mass and navigating an obstacle. Eight healthy male participants walked down a walkway and crossed an obstacle under three randomised LOAD conditions; empty-box (2 KG), five kilogram (5 KG) and ten kilogram (10 KG). Each walk was assessed at two events: left foot mid-stance (LMS) and right toe-crossing (TC) to characterise any changes from approach to crossing. Measures of interest included: trunk pitch, L4/L5 joint moment, compression, joint anterior–posterior shear and erector spinae activation. Findings demonstrate that obstacle crossing extended posture by 50, 41, 44%, respectively for each carried load magnitude. Further, these results indicate that shear rather than compressive loading may be an important consideration during crossing due to increase by 8, 9, 22% from LMS to TC for each load magnitude tested. These results provide insight into sagittal lumbar loading when navigating an obstacle while carrying a load.

Practitioner Summary: The risk of carrying while navigating obstacles on the lumbar spine is not completely understood. The forces at the lumbar spine while simultaneously carrying and obstacle crossing were analysed. Data indicate that carrying and obstacle crossing influence lumbar shear loads, thereby moderately increasing the relative risk at lumbar spine.     

The impact of office chair features on lumbar lordosis,intervertebral joint and sacral tilt angles: a radiographic assessment

Abstract

Background: The purpose of this study was to determine which office chair feature is better at improving spine posture in sitting. Method: Participants (n = 28) were radiographed in standing, maximum flexion and seated in four chair conditions: control, lumbar support, seat pan tilt and backrest with scapular relief. Measures of lumbar lordosis, intervertebral joint angles and sacral tilt were compared between conditions and sex. Results: Sitting consisted of approximately 70% of maximum range of spine flexion. No differences in lumbar flexion were found between the chair features or control. Significantly more anterior pelvic rotation was found with the lumbar support (p = 0.0028) and seat pan tilt (p < 0.0001). Males had significantly more anterior pelvic rotation and extended intervertebral joint angles through L1–L3 in all conditions (p < 0.0001). Conclusion: No one feature was statistically superior with respect to minimising spine flexion, however, seat pan tilt resulted in significantly improved pelvic posture.

Practitioner Summary: Seat pan tilt, and to some extent lumbar supports, appear to improve seated postures. However, sitting, regardless of chair features used, still involves near end range flexion of the spine. This will increase stresses to the spine and could be a potential injury generator during prolonged seated exposures.     

A parametric investigation on seat/occupant contact forces and their relationship with initially perceived discomfort using a configurable seat

The present work investigates the contact forces between sitters and seat as well as their correlations with perceived discomfort. Twelve different economy class aeroplane seat configurations were simulated using a multi-adjustable experimental seat by varying seat pan and backrest angles, as well as seat pan compressed surface. Eighteen males and 18 females, selected by their body mass index and stature, tested these configurations for two sitting postures. Perceived discomfort was significantly affected by seat parameters and posture and correlated both with normal force distribution on the seat-pan surface and with normal forces at the lumbar and head supports. Lower discomfort ratings were obtained for more evenly distributed normal forces on the seat pan. Shear force at the seat pan surface was at its lowest when sitters were allowed to self-select their seat-pan angle, supporting that a shear force should be reduced but not zeroed to improve seating comfort.

Practitioner Summary: The effects of seat-pan and backrest angle, anthropometric dimensions and sitting posture on contact forces and perceived discomfort were investigated using a multi-adjustable experimental seat. In addition to preferred seat profile parameters, the present work provides quantitative guidelines on contact force requirement for improving seating comfort.     

A comparison of trunk biomechanics,musculoskeletal discomfort and productivity during simulated sit-stand office work

Sedentary office work has been shown to cause low back discomfort and potentially cause injury. Prolonged standing work has been shown to cause discomfort. The implementation of a sit–stand paradigm is hypothesised to mitigate discomfort and prevent injury induced by prolonged exposure to each posture in isolation. This study explored the potential of sit–stand to reduce discomfort and prevent injury, without adversely affecting productivity. Twenty-four participants performed simulated office work in three different conditions: sitting, standing and sit–stand. Variables measured included: perceived discomfort, L4–L5 joint loading and typing/mousing productivity. Working in a sit–stand paradigm was found to have the potential to reduce discomfort when compared to working in a sitting or standing only configuration. Sit–stand was found to be associated with reduced lumbar flexion during sitting compared to sitting only. Increasing lumbar flexion during prolonged sitting is a known injury mechanism. Therefore, sit–stand exhibited a potentially beneficial response of reduced lumbar flexion that could have the potential to prevent injury. Sit–stand had no significant effect on productivity.

Practitioner Summary: This study has contributed foundational elements to guide usage recommendations for sit–stand workstations. The sit–stand paradigm can reduce discomfort; however, working in a sit–stand ratio of 15:5 min may not be the most effective ratio. More frequent posture switches may be necessary to realise the full benefit of sit–stand.     

Lumbar posture and individual flexibility influence back muscle flexion-relaxation phenomenon while sitting

Although numerous studies have documented back muscle flexion-relaxation phenomenon (FRP) in standing postures, few studies have examined the FRP in various seated lumbar postures and individual flexibilities. This study, therefore, recruited 18 male students and assigned to low- and high-flexibility groups (9 in each). Activation of thoracic and lumbar erector spinae (ES) and lumbosacral angles were examined while participants sat in two postures (lordosis and kyphosis) and flexed their trunks at 15°, 30°, 45°, 60°, and maximum flexion. Results showed that kyphotic lumbar posture caused relatively low and unchangeable thoracic and lumbar ES activations, whereas lordotic lumbar posture engendered more contractive and varying thoracic and lumbar ES activations. Flexible participants exhibited higher thoracic ES activation than less flexible participants during lordotic sitting. Thoracic ES seemed to play a compensative role to stabilize the spine in the lordotic sitting posture, especially when the trunk was flexed over 45°. In lordotic lumbar posture, FRP occurred only in the lumbar ES; however, the activation and lumbosacral angles were still higher than those in kyphotic posture. The increased back muscle activation associated with lumbar lordosis may partially share the load on passive interspinous tissues, which are close to the discs during these flexed trunk positions.Relevance to industryThis study suggests that various lumbar postures and individual flexibilities may cause different FRP patterns when sitting. While performing seated tasks, people should exercise caution about the lumbar posture.     

Three-dimensional finger joint angles by hand posture and object properties

The objective of this study was to identify three-dimensional finger joint angles for various hand postures and object properties. Finger joint angles were measured using a VICON system for 10 participants while they pinched objects with two, three, four and five fingers and grasped them with five fingers. The objects were cylinders and square pillars with diameters of 2, 4, 6 and 8 cm and weights of 400, 800, 1400 and 1800 g. Hand posture and object size more significantly affected the joint flexion angles than did object shape and weight. Object shape affected only the metacarpophalangeal (MCP) joint angle of the index finger and the flexion angle of the MCP joint of the little finger. Larger flexion angles resulted when the hand posture was grasping with five fingers. The joint angle increased linearly as the object size decreased. This report provides fundamental information about the specific joint angles of the thumb and fingers.

Practitioner Summary: Three-dimensional finger joint angles are of special interest in ergonomics because of their importance in handheld devices and musculoskeletal hand disorders. In this study, the finger joint angles corresponding to various hand postures and objects with different properties were determined.     

A detailed description of the short-term musculoskeletal and cognitive effects of prolonged standing for office computer work

Due to concerns about excessive sedentary exposure for office workers, alternate work positions such as standing are being trialled. However, prolonged standing may have health and productivity impacts, which this study assessed. Twenty adult participants undertook two hours of laboratory-based standing computer work to investigate changes in discomfort and cognitive function, along with muscle fatigue, movement, lower limb swelling and mental state. Over time, discomfort increased in all body areas (total body IRR [95% confidence interval]: 1.47[1.36–1.59]). Sustained attention reaction time (β = 18.25[8.00–28.51]) deteriorated, while creative problem solving improved (β = 0.89[0.29–1.49]). There was no change in erector spinae, rectus femoris, biceps femoris or tibialis anterior muscle fatigue; low back angle changed towards less lordosis, pelvis movement increased, lower limb swelling increased and mental state decreased. Body discomfort was positively correlated with mental state. The observed changes suggest replacing office work sitting with standing should be done with caution.

Practitioner Summary: Standing is being used to replace sitting by office workers; however, there are health risks associated with prolonged standing. In a laboratory study involving 2 h prolonged standing discomfort increased (all body areas), reaction time and mental state deteriorated while creative problem-solving improved. Prolonged standing should be undertaken with caution.     

Dynamic biomechanical modelling of symmetric and asymmetric lifting tasks in restricted postures

This article describes investigations of dynamic biomechanical stresses associated with lifting in stooping and kneeling postures. Twelve subjects volunteered to participate in two lifting experiments each having two levels of posture (stooped or kneeling), two levels of lifting height (350 or 700 mm), and three levels of weight (15,20, or 25 kg). One study examined sagitally symmetric lifting, the other examined an asymmetric task. In each study, subjects lifted and lowered a box every 10 s for a period of 2 min in each treatment combination. Electromyography (EMG) of eight trunk muscles was collected during a specified lift. The EMG data, normalized to maximum extension and flexion exertions in each posture, was used to predict compression and shear forces at the L3 level of the lumbar spine. A comparison of symmetric and asymmetric lifting indicated that the average lumbar compression was greater in sagittal plane tasks; however, both anterior-posterior and lateral shear forces acting on the lumbar spine were increased with asymmetric lifts. Analysis of muscle recruitment indicated that the demands of lifting asymmetrically are shifted to ancillary muscles possessing smaller cross-sectional areas, which may be at greater risk of injury during manual materials handling (MMH) tasks. Model estimates indicated increased compression when kneeling, but increased shear forces when stooping. Increasing box weight and lifting height both significantly increased compressive and shear loading on the lumbar spine. A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) indicated complex muscle recruitment schemes—each treatment combination elicited a unique pattern of muscle recruitment. The results of this investigation will help to evaluate safe loads for lifting in these restricted postures.     

Maximum acceptable lifting loads during seated and standing work positions

The psychophysical method was used to determine the maximal acceptable load that eight males (age 22-30 years) would lift in each of four different positions: (1) seated, two-handed, symmetrical lift from a table, to a position 38 cm forward of the edge, (2) a seated lift from a position at the subject's side, on to a table in front of the subject involving a 90 degree twist of the torso, (3) standing, two-handed, symmetrical lift from the table, to a position 38 cm forward of the edge, and (4) standing, vertical lift from 86 above the floor. Subsequent to a training period, subjects lifted a tray with slotted handles at the rate of 1 or 4 lifts/min. Each subject chose the weight of the tray which was acceptable to him by adding or removing flat pieces of lead over a 45 min period. The weight of the tray, heart rate, and the perceived exertion were measured at 15, 30 and 45 min. Oxygen consumption was measured during the last 5 min of the 45 min experiment. Statistical analysis revealed a significant frequency and position effect. An increase in frequency from 1 to 4 lifts/min resulted in a decrease of 1.6 to 2.1 kg in the maximum acceptable weight for the various tasks. On average, the maximum acceptable weight of lift for standing positions was 16% greater than for sitting positions. Oxygen consumption and heart rate were significantly higher for 4 lifts/min than for 1 lift/min; however, the rating of perceived exertion did not differ for any factor.     

An evaluation of off-axis manual forces and upper extremity joint moments during unilateral pushing and pulling exertions

This study quantified changes in off-axis manual force production and upper extremity joint moments during sub-maximal one-handed push and pull tasks. Off-axis forces in the up/down and left/right directions were quantified in the presence or absence of constraints placed upon the direction of manual force application and/or arm posture. Resultant off-axis forces of 13.1% and 9.4% were produced for pulls and pushes, respectively. Off-axis forces during pulling were oriented downwards and to the right and were associated with a decreased should flexion moment when posture was constrained. Off-axis forces in the up/down direction were minimized with increased on-axis force level. Off-axis forces during pushing tended to be oriented to the left and were associated with increased elbow flexion moment when off-axis forces were allowed. By not accounting for these off-axis forces, we may not be accurately reflecting actionable muscle- and joint-level loading characteristics derived from biomechanically-based proactive ergonomics assessment approaches.

Practitioner Summary: Constrained arm postures and directions of manual force application influence the production of off-axis forces. As inaccurate estimation of true manual forces can markedly influence actionable outcomes of proactive ergonomic assessments, this study suggests that simplification of these estimates is insufficient and potentially misleading.     

Continuous assessment of low back loads in long-term care nurses

Considerable effort has been spent evaluating aspects of low back injury risk in nursing yet comprehensive evaluation of all work tasks has been limited. The purpose of this study was to evaluate peak and cumulative lumbar spine loads experienced by personal support workers. A total of 20 female long-term care workers were observed and had trunk posture monitored via an inclinometer throughout their shift. When adjusted for an 8-h workday, workers experienced cumulative loads of 21.3 ± 4.6 MNs, 1.8 ± 0.6 MNs and 2.9 ± 1.4 MNs for compression, lateral and anterior shear, respectively. Patient care, unloaded standing, walking and miscellaneous tasks accounted for almost 80% of cumulative compression, while lifts and transfers accounted for less than 10%. Mechanical lift assists reduced peak loads and contributed minimally to cumulative loading. These findings suggest that both peak and cumulative spine loads should be considered when evaluating injury risk in the nursing profession.

Statement of Relevance: This study has shown that tasks other than patient transfers and lifts are important in the assessment of low back injury risk in nurses. The method developed is a relatively straightforward approach that can be used to estimate peak and cumulative spine load to provide insight to risk of injury in many occupational settings.