ArticleErgonomics2016
Measuring elemental time and duty cycle using automated video processing.
Article in Ergonomics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of the observer, single-frame video and computer vision hand activity levels.Ergonomics · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
A marker-less 2D video algorithm measured hand kinematics (location, velocity and acceleration) in a paced repetitive laboratory task for varying hand activity levels (HAL). The decision tree (DT) algorithm identified the trajectory of the hand using spatiotemporal relationships during the exertion and rest states. The feature vector training (FVT) method utilised the k-nearest neighbourhood classifier, trained using a set of samples or the first cycle. The average duty cycle (DC) error using the DT algorithm was 2.7%. The FVT algorithm had an average 3.3% error when trained using the first cycle sample of each repetitive task, and had a 2.8% average error when trained using several representative repetitive cycles. Error for HAL was 0.1 for both algorithms, which was considered negligible. Elemental time, stratified by task and subject, were not statistically different from ground truth (p < 0.05). Both algorithms performed well for automatically measuring elapsed time, DC and HAL. Practitioner Summary: A completely automated approach for measuring elapsed time and DC was developed using marker-less video tracking and the tracked kinematic record. Such an approach is automatic, repeatable, objective and unobtrusive, and is suitable for evaluating repetitive exertions, muscle fatigue and manual tasks.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.