ArticleHuman factors2024
Exploring Optimal Objective Function Weightings to Predict Lifting Postures Under Unfatigued and Fatigued States.
Article in Human factors, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo explore whether the optimal objective function weightings change when using a digital human model (DHM) to predict origin and destination lifting postures under unfatigued and fatigued states.
backgroundThe ability to predict human postures can depend on state-based influences (e.g., fatigue). Altering objective function weightings within a predictive DHM could improve the ability to predict tasks specific lifting postures under unique fatigue states.
methodA multi-objective optimization-based DHM was used to predict origin and destination lifting postures for ten anthropometrically scaled avatars by using different objective functions weighting combinations. Predicted and measured postures were compared to determine the root mean squared error. A response surface methodology was used to identify the optimal objective function weightings, which was found by generating the posture that minimized error between measured and predicted lifting postures. The resultant weightings were compared to determine if the optimal objective function weightings changed for different lifting postures or fatigue states.
resultsDiscomfort and total joint torque weightings were affected by posture (origin/destination) and fatigue state (unfatigued/fatigued); however, post-hoc differences between fatigue states and lifting postures were not sufficiently large to be detected. Weighting the discomfort objective function alone tended to predict postures that generalized well to both postures and fatigue states.
conclusionLift postures were optimal predicted using the minimization of discomfort objective function regardless of fatigue state. APPLICATION: Weighting the discomfort objective can predict unfatigued postures, but more research is needed to understand the optimal objective function weightings to predict postures during a fatigued state.
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.