TY - JOUR
T1 - Maximal and graded effort perception by young females in stoop lifting, hand grip and finger pinch activity with comparisons to males
AU - Kumar, Shrawan
AU - Simmonds, Maureen
AU - Lechelt, David
N1 - Funding Information:
Ayoub, M.M., Bethea,N .J., DeivanayangaSn.,, Asfour, S.S., Bakken,G .M., Liles. D., Mital, A., and Sherif, M., 1978. Determinatioann d modellingo f lifting capacity.F inal report HEW (NIOSH) Grant No. 5 ROIOH-00545-02, September. BanisterE, .W., 1979.T he perceptioonf effort - An inductive approachE. ur. J. Applied Physiol.,4 1: 41-150. Borg, G.A.V., 1962.P hysicalP erformancaen d PerceivedE x-ertion.G leerupL, und (Sweden). Borg, G., 1970.P erceivede xertiona s an indicatoor f somatic stressS. cand.J . Rehabil.M ed., 2: 92-98. Borg, G. and DahlstromH, ., 1959.P sychophysicabla seso f perceiveedx ertionM. ed. Sci. Sports,1 4: 377-381. Borg, G. and DahlstromH, ., 1960.T he perceptioonf muscu-lar work. Umea VetenskB. ibliotekS kr., 5: 1-26. Cafareli,E ., 1977.P eripheraal ndc entrali nputst o the effort sensed uringc yclinge xerciseE. ur. J. Applied Physiol.,3 7: 181-189. CampbellE, .J.M., Edwards,R .H.T., Hill, D.K., Jones, D.A. and Sykes,M .K., 1976.P erceptiono f effort duringp artial curarizationJ.. Physiol.,2 63: 186-187. Corlett,E .N. and Bishop,R .B., 1976.A techniqufeo r assess-ing posturadl iscomfortE. rgonomics1, 9: 175-182. Edwards,R .H.T., Melcher,A ., HesserC, .M., Wigertz,O . and Ekelund,L .G., 1972.P hysiologicaclo rrelateosf perceived exertionin continuouas nd intermittenetx ercisew ith the samea veragep owero utput.E ur. J. Clin. Invest.,2 : 108-114. Eisler, H., 1962.S ubjectivesc aleo f force for a large muscle group.J . Exp. Psychol.,6 4: 253-257. Ekblom,B . and GoldbargA, .N. 1971.T he influenceo f train-ing and otherf actorso n the subjectivrea tingo f perceived exertionA. cta Physiol.S cand.,8 3: 399-406. GamberaleF,. , 1972.P erceivede xertionh, eartrate, oxygen uptake and blood lactatei n differentw ork operations. Ergonomics1, 5:545-554. GamberaleF,. , 1985.T he perceptioonf exertionE. rgonomics, 28: 299-308. HenrikssonJ.,, KnuttgenH, .G. and BondeopeterseFn.,, 1972. Perceivede xertiond uringe xercisew ith concentrica nd eccentrimc usclec ontractionEs.r gonomics1, 5: 537-544. Johansson,S .E., 1986. Perceivede xertion,h eart rate and blood lactated uringp rolongede xerciseo n a bicyclee r- gonometeIrn. : G. Borg and D. Ottosen(E ds.),t hePercep-tion of Exertionin PhysicaWl ork. MacmillanL, ondon. Kumar, S., Chaffin, D.B. and Redfern,M ., 1988.S taticand dynamics trengt-h Devicea ndm easuremenJ.t .B iomech., 21: 35-44. Kumar, S. and Garand,D ., 1992.S tatica ndd ynamics trength at differenrte achd istanceisn symmetricaaln dasymmetri-cal planesE. rgonomics3, 5(7/8):8 61-880. Kumar, S. and SimmondsM, ., (1992).E ffort perceptioans an ergonomitco ol. In: S. Kumar (Ed.), Adv. in Ind. Erg. IV. Taylor & Francis,L ondon& Washingtonp,p . 637-643. Kumar, S. and SimmondsM, . 1993.T he accuracyo f percep-tion of maximala nd sub-maximapl recisiona nd power grips and gross motor efforts in young normal males. Ergonomic(si n press). Lloyd, A.R., Gandevia,S .C. and Hales, J.P. 1991. Muscle performancev,o luntarya ctivationtw itch propertiesa nd perceivede ffort in normal subjectsa nd patientsw ith chronicf atigues yndromeB. rain, 114:8 5-98. Lollgen,H ., Ulmer,H .V. and Nieding,G .V., 1977.H eartrate and perceptuarle sponseto exercisew ith differentp ed-alling speedi n normals ubjectsa nd patientsE. ur. J. Ap-plied Physiol.,3 7: 297-304. Mital, A. 1983.T he psychophysicaapl proachin manualli fting - A verificationst udy.H um. Factors2, 5: 485-491. NIOSH, 1981W, orkp racticegsu idef or manualli fting.N IOSH Report,C incinnatiO, hio. Pandolf,K .B., Cafarelli,E ., Noble, B.J. and Metz, K.F., 1972. Perceptuarle sponsedsu ringp rolongewd ork.P erceptM. ot. Skills, 35: 975-985. Pandolf,K .B. and Noble, B.J., 1973.T he effecto f pedalling speed and resistancech angeso n perceivede xertionf or equivalenpto wero utputso n the bicyclee rgometerM. ed. Sci. Sports,5 : 132-126. Skinner,J .S., Borg, G.A.V. and Buskird,E .R., 1969.P hysio-logicala ndp erceptuarle actiontso exertiono f youngm en differingi n activitya nd body size. In: B.D. Frank (Ed.), Exercisea nd Fitness.A thleticI nstituteC, hicago,p p. 53-66. Snook, S.H. 1978. The design of manual handlingtasks. Ergonomics2,1 (12):9 63-985. StatisticCs anada,1 988.W ork InjuriesD epartmenotf Supply and ServicesO, ttawa. StatisticCs anada,1 991.W ork InjuriesD epartmenotf Supply and ServicesO, ttawa. StevensS, .S., 1957.O n the psychophysiclaalw . Psychol.R ev, 64(3):1 53-181. StevensS, .S., 1960. The psychopbysicosf sensoryfunction. Am. Sci., 2: 226-253. StevensJ,. C. and Mack, J.D., 1959.S caleso f apparenfto rce. J. Exp. Psychol.5, 8(5):4 05-413. Wang, M.J., Liu, C.M. and Shih, Y.C., 1991.A methodf or determiningth e differencet hresholdo f judging weight differencein materialh andling.I nt. J. Ind. Ergon., 8: 335-343.
PY - 1994/2
Y1 - 1994/2
N2 - Ten normal young adult females (mean age 26.8 years, mean weight 50.9 kg, mean height 165.9 cm) performed maximal and subjectively graded exertions of the stoop lift, hand grip, and finger pinch. The levels of graded exertion required were 80%, 60%, 40% and 20% of maximal voluntary contraction (MVC). The sequences of all conditions were fully randomized. Each of the randomized conditions was tried three times in succession. The entire experiment was carried out on four different days at the same time of the day on Monday, Wednesday, Friday of one week and Friday of the next week. The data obtained were subjected to descriptive and statistical analysis with t-test, analysis of variance, and correlation and regression. There were significant differences in the effort produced in three different activities (p < 0.01). The levels of exertion from 20% to 80% were all significantly different from each other (p < 0.01). However, there were no significant differences between the three trials of any given condition and the exertions produced on four different days. The 80% and 60% of exertions were overestimated and 20% was underestimated compared to the objective values based on MVC (p < 0.01). At 40% effort there was no significant difference between the objective level of exertion and subjectively gauged and produced effort for all three activities. The reliability of perception among the female subjects was similar for finger pinch, hand grip, and stoop lift activities.
AB - Ten normal young adult females (mean age 26.8 years, mean weight 50.9 kg, mean height 165.9 cm) performed maximal and subjectively graded exertions of the stoop lift, hand grip, and finger pinch. The levels of graded exertion required were 80%, 60%, 40% and 20% of maximal voluntary contraction (MVC). The sequences of all conditions were fully randomized. Each of the randomized conditions was tried three times in succession. The entire experiment was carried out on four different days at the same time of the day on Monday, Wednesday, Friday of one week and Friday of the next week. The data obtained were subjected to descriptive and statistical analysis with t-test, analysis of variance, and correlation and regression. There were significant differences in the effort produced in three different activities (p < 0.01). The levels of exertion from 20% to 80% were all significantly different from each other (p < 0.01). However, there were no significant differences between the three trials of any given condition and the exertions produced on four different days. The 80% and 60% of exertions were overestimated and 20% was underestimated compared to the objective values based on MVC (p < 0.01). At 40% effort there was no significant difference between the objective level of exertion and subjectively gauged and produced effort for all three activities. The reliability of perception among the female subjects was similar for finger pinch, hand grip, and stoop lift activities.
KW - Effort perception
KW - Perceived exertion
KW - Psychophysics
KW - Strength assessment
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0343311308&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0343311308&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/0169-8141(94)90059-0
DO - 10.1016/0169-8141(94)90059-0
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:0343311308
SN - 0169-8141
VL - 13
SP - 3
EP - 13
JO - International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics
JF - International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics
IS - 1
ER -