JOURNAL BROWSE
Search
Advanced SearchSearch Tips
Motion Analysis and EMG Analysis of the Pelvis and Lower Extremity according to the Width Variation of the Base of Support
facebook(new window)  Pirnt(new window) E-mail(new window) Excel Download
 Title & Authors
Motion Analysis and EMG Analysis of the Pelvis and Lower Extremity according to the Width Variation of the Base of Support
Yoo, Kyung-Tae; Yoon, Jung-Gyu; Park, Bo-Kyung; Han, Hae-Rin; Yun, Young-Dae; Lee, Sang-Bin;
  PDF(new window)
 Abstract
The purpose of this study is to identify which width of the base of support(BOS) is safer and more effective in lifting by comparing muscle activations and body sways when lifting objects under the width variation of the BOS. A total of fifteen healthy adults participated in this study. For the width variation of the BOS, the participants changed the width between their feet into three different types(10cm, 32cm, 45cm) and lifted a 10kg four times in each type after going up on a force plate. In order to measure body sways according to the width variation of the BOS, a motion analysis system was used. In addition, in order to measure the muscle activations of lower extremities, including the erector spinae, gluteus maximus, rectus femoris, and tibialis anterior, an electromyogram(EMG) analysis was employed. In addition, the Borg's scale was drawn by quantifying the subjective discomfort levels felt from each width of the BOS. In conclusion, no statistically significant differences according to the width variation of the BOS were observed(p=.295, .308)(p>.05). However, a statistically significant difference was exhibited between the Borg's scale, which indicates the discomfort levels from lifting performances, and the width variation of the BOS (p=).
 Keywords
BOS;Motion Analysis System;EMG;Lifting;Body Sway;
 Language
English
 Cited by
 References
1.
Severance Hospital Rehabilitation Center, Physical Therapy Team. Funtional Movement Reeducation. Jungdammedia 2006;17-19.

2.
Yun HS, Choi HS, Kim TH, Cynn HS, Lee KS. Effects of the Width in the Base of Support on Trunk and Lower Extremity Muscle Activation during Upper Extremity Exercise. J Kor Acad Univ Trained Phy Ther 2004; 11(3): 43-50.

3.
David BJ. Hollinshead's Functional Anatomy of the Limbs and Back 8/e. WB Saunders 2002; 24-25.

4.
Holbein MA, Redfern MS. Functional Stability Limits while Holding Loads in Various Position. Int J Industrial Ergon 1997; 19:387-395. crossref(new window)

5.
Ilyse Z, Alexander A. Carrying loads and postural sway in standing: The effect of load placement and magnitude. A J of Prevention Assessment and Rehabilitation 2008; 30(4): 359-68.

6.
Aruin AS, Forrest WR, Latash ML. Anticipatory Postural Adjustments in Conditions of Postural Instability. Electroencephalogy Clin Neurophysiol. 1998; 109(4): 350-359. crossref(new window)

7.
Eon S. Evidence to Support using Squat, Semisquat and Stoop Techniques to Lift Low-lying Object. Int J of Industrial Ergon 2003; 31: 149-160. crossref(new window)

8.
Babak B, Aboulfazl SA, Navid A. Analysis of Squat and Stoop Dynamic Lifting: Muscle Forces and Internal Spinal Loads. Eur Spine J 2007; 16: 687-699. crossref(new window)

9.
Lee JW. A Study on Development of Load Limits and Safe Work Models for manual Materials Handling. Occupational Safety and Health Research Institute 2005; 87-88.

10.
http://molab.go.kr/.2006.

11.
Chang SR, Park HG. A Study on the Effects of the Trunk Angles and the Upper Arm Angles on Workloads in the Lifting Work. J Kor Soc Safety 2009; 24(4): 69-75.

12.
Kim YK, Kim JR, Shin HJ. The Comparision of Fatigue Recovery Pattern of Trunk Muscles during Asymmetric Dynamic Lifting. J Ergon Soc Kor 2006; 155-158.

13.
Donald AN. Kinesiology of the Musculoskeletal System. FA Davis 2002; 371-376.

14.
Lee YS. A Study on the Foot Type of Korean Adults. J Ergon Soc Kor 1996; 218-223.

15.
Leon MS. A Review of Research on Techniques for Lifting Low-lying Object 2. Evidence for a Correct Technique 2003; 83-96.

16.
Borg G. A General Scale to Rate Symptoms and Feelings related to Problems of Ergonomic and Organizational Importance, G Ital Med Lav Ergon 2008; 30; 8-10.

17.
Kim KS, Hong CW, Lee HK, Moon MS, Bae TS, Song HN, Hur H. A Study on Development of Evaluation and Safe Work Models for Risk Factor of Musculoskeletal disorder. Occupational Safetyand Health Research Institute 2006; 113-116.

18.
Ronna SD, Steven JR. An Electromyographic Analysis of Two Techniques for Squat Lifting and Lowering. Phys Ther 1992; 72(6); 438-448.

19.
Kim KS, Hong CW, Lee HK. Ergonomic and Psychophysical Evaluation about Work Experi ment for Setting. J Ergon Soc Kor 2007; 392-396.

20.
Yoon KC, Kim JR. Contribution of the Spine and Pelvis during Lifting with Different Loads Measured by LAM. J Ergon Soc Kor 2008; 57-61.

21.
Kollmitzer J, Oddsson L, Ebenbichler GR. Postural Control during Lifting. J Biomech 2002; 35(5): 585-94. crossref(new window)