Cognitive dissonance increases spine loading in the neck and low back.

Cognitive dissonance refers to a state where two psychologically inconsistent thoughts, behaviours, or attitudes are held at the same time. The objective of this study was to explore the potential role of cognitive dissonance in biomechanical loading in the low back and neck. Seventeen participants underwent a laboratory experiment involving a precision lowering task. To establish a cognitive dissonance state (CDS), study participants were provided negative feedback on their performance running counter to a pre-established expectation that their performance was excellent. Dependent measures of interest were spinal loads in the cervical and lumbar spines, calculated via two electromyography-driven models. The CDS was associated with increases to peak spinal loads in the neck (11.1%, p < .05) and low back (2.2%, p < .05). A greater CDS magnitude was also associated with a greater spinal loading increase. Therefore, cognitive dissonance may represent a risk factor for low back/neck pain that has not been previously identified.Practitioner summary: Upon establishing a cognitive dissonance state in a group of participants, spinal loading in the cervical and lumbar spines were increased proportional to the magnitude of the cognitive dissonance reported. Therefore, cognitive dissonance may represent a risk factor for low back and neck pain that has not been previously identified.

The Potential Relationship Between a Cognitive Dissonance State and Musculoskeletal Injury: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this systematic review was to investigate the potential link between cognitive dissonance or its related constructs (emotional dissonance, emotional labor) and musculoskeletal disorders. BACKGROUND: The etiology of musculoskeletal disorders is complex, as pain arises from complex interactions among physical, social, and psychological stressors. It is possible that the psychological factor of cognitive dissonance may contribute to the etiology and/or maintenance of musculoskeletal disorders. METHOD: MEDLINE, APA PsycInfo, and CINAHL Plus databases were searched for studies investigating cognitive dissonance or its related constructs as exposure(s) of interest and outcomes related to physical health (including, but not limited to, musculoskeletal pain). Risk of bias was assessed using the Appraisal tool for Cross-Sectional Studies (AXIS) tool. RESULTS: The literature search yielded 7 studies eligible for inclusion. None of the included studies investigated cognitive dissonance directly but instead investigated dissonance-related constructs of emotional dissonance and emotional labor, in which a mismatch between required and felt emotions might elicit a psychological response consistent with the cognitive dissonance state. Moderate effect sizes between dissonance-related constructs and musculoskeletal disorders were noted (OR 1.25-2.22). CONCLUSION: There is likely a relationship between the two factors studied. However, as the included studies were cross-sectional in nature, a causal relationship between cognitive dissonance-related constructs and musculoskeletal disorders cannot be inferred. Therefore, future study proposing and validating a causal pathway between these variables is warranted. APPLICATION: Cognitive dissonance and its related constructs may serve as risk factors for musculoskeletal disorders that have not been considered previously.

Motion sickness decreases low back function and changes gene expression in military aircrew.

BACKGROUND: Motion sickness and low back disorders are prevalent and debilitating conditions that affect the health, performance, and operational effectiveness of military aircrews. This study explored the effects of a motion sickness stimulus on biomechanical and genetic factors that could potentially be involved in the causal pathways for both disorders. METHODS: Subjects recruited from a military population were exposed to either a mild (n = 12) or aggressive (n = 16) motion sickness stimulus in a Neuro-Otologic Test Center. The independent variable of interest was the motion sickness stimulus exposure (before vs. after), though differences between mild and aggressive stimuli were also assessed. Dependent measures for the study included motion sickness exposure duration, biomechanical variables (postural stability, gait function, low back function, lumbar spine loading), and gene expression. FINDINGS: Seven of twelve subjects experiencing the mild motion sickness stimulus endured the full 30 min in the NOTC, whereas subjects lasted an average of 13.2 (SD 5.0) minutes in the NOTC with the aggressive motion sickness stimulus. Mild motion sickness exposure led to a significant decrease in the postural stability measure of sway area, though the aggressive motion sickness exposure led to a statistically significant increase in sway area. Both stimuli led to decreases in low back function, though the decrease was only statistically significant for the mild protocol. Both stimuli also led to significant changes in gene expression. INTERPRETATION: Motion sickness may alter standing balance, decrease low back function, and lead to changes in the expression of genes with roles in osteogenesis, myogenesis, development of brain lymphatics, inflammation, neuropathic pain, and more. These results may provide preliminary evidence for a link between motion sickness and low back disorders.

A physiological and biomechanical investigation of three passive upper-extremity exoskeletons during simulated overhead work.

The objective of this study was to evaluate three passive upper-extremity exoskeletons relative to a control condition. Twelve subjects performed an hour-long, simulated occupational task in a laboratory setting. Independent measures of exoskeleton, exertion height (overhead, head height), time, and their interactions were assessed. Dependent measures included changes in tissue oxygenation (ΔTSI) in the anterior deltoid and middle trapezius, peak resultant lumbar spine loading, and subjective discomfort in various body regions. A statistically significant reduction in ΔTSI between exoskeleton and control was only observed in one instance. Additionally, neither increases in spinal loading nor increases in subjective discomfort ratings were observed for any of the exoskeletons. Ultimately, the exoskeletons offered little to no physiological benefit for the conditions tested. However, the experimental task was not highly fatiguing to the subjects, denoted by low ΔTSI values across conditions. Results may vary for tasks requiring constant arm elevation or higher force demands. Practitioner summary This study quantified the benefits of upper-extremity exoskeletons using NIRS, complementary to prior studies using EMG. The exoskeletons offered little to no physiological benefit for the conditions tested. However, the experimental task was not highly fatiguing, and results may vary for an experimental task with greater demand on the shoulders. Abbreviations: WMSD: work-related musculoskeletal disorder; EMG: electromyography; NIRS: near-infrared spectroscopy; NIR: near-infrared; Hb: haemoglobin; Mb: myoglobin; TSI: tissue saturation index; ATT: adipose tissue thickness.

Neural and biomechanical tradeoffs associated with human-exoskeleton interactions.

Industrial passive low-back exoskeletons have gained recent attention as ergonomic interventions to manual handling tasks. This research utilized a two-armed experimental approach (single vs dual-task paradigms) to quantify neural and biomechanical tradeoffs associated with short-term human-exoskeleton interaction (HEI) during asymmetrical lifting in twelve healthy adults balanced by gender. A dynamic, electromyography-assisted spine model was employed that indicated statistical, but marginal, biomechanical benefits of the tested exoskeleton, which diminished with the introduction of the cognitive dual-task. Using Near Infrared Spectroscopy (fNIRS)-based brain connectivity analyses, we found that the tested exoskeleton imposed greater neurocognitive and motor adaptation efforts by engaging action monitoring and error processing brain networks. Collectively, these findings indicate that a wearer's biomechanical response to increased cognitive demands in the workplace may offset the mechanical advantages of exoskeletons. We also demonstrate the utility of ambulatory fNIRS to capture the neural cost of HEI without the need for elaborate dual-task manipulations.

Dynamic Joint Motions in Occupational Environments as Indicators of Potential Musculoskeletal Injury Risk.

The objective of this study was to test the feasibility of using a pair of wearable inertial measurement unit (IMU) sensors to accurately capture dynamic joint motion data during simulated occupational conditions. Eleven subjects (5 males and 6 females) performed repetitive neck, low-back, and shoulder motions simulating low- and high-difficulty occupational tasks in a laboratory setting. Kinematics for each of the 3 joints were measured via IMU sensors in addition to a "gold standard" passive marker optical motion capture system. The IMU accuracy was benchmarked relative to the optical motion capture system, and IMU sensitivity to low- and high-difficulty tasks was evaluated. The accuracy of the IMU sensors was found to be very good on average, but significant positional drift was observed in some trials. In addition, IMU measurements were shown to be sensitive to differences in task difficulty in all 3 joints (P < .05). These results demonstrate the feasibility for using wearable IMU sensors to capture kinematic exposures as potential indicators of occupational injury risk. Velocities and accelerations demonstrate the most potential for developing risk metrics since they are sensitive to task difficulty and less sensitive to drift than rotational position measurements.

Comparison of push/pull force estimates using a single-axis gauge versus a three-dimensional hand transducer.

This study investigated the effects of using a single-axis force gauge for push/pull force measurement on kinetic/kinematic measures associated with the exertion and assessed agreement between forces recorded from two technologies (single-axis gauge, three-dimensional hand transducer) and various test conditions via intraclass correlations. Independent measures included exertion type (push, pull, turn), test condition (natural/cart alone, using force gauge at fast/slow/self-selected paces), and cart weight (light, heavy). Dependent measures included mean angles of force application, peak forces recorded from both technologies, and cart velocity. Excellent agreement was observed between technologies (ICC = 0.998). Likewise, peak forces using the single-axis gauge at the fast pace agreed best with the natural test condition (ICC = 0.631). Forces should be measured using a faster initial acceleration and sustained velocity than is prescribed by the current standard if they are to accurately approximate forces relative to existing push/pull guidelines. Future work should also develop recommendations for measuring turning forces.

One versus two-handed lifting and lowering: lumbar spine loads and recommended one-handed limits protecting the lower back.

The objectives of this study were to quantify loads imposed upon the lumbar spine while lifting/lowering with one versus two hands and to create guidelines for one-handed lifting/lowering that are protective of the lower back. Thirty subjects (15 male, 15 female) performed one- and two-handed exertions in a laboratory, lifting from/lowering to 18 lift origins/destinations using medicine balls of varying masses. An electromyography-assisted model predicted peak spinal loads, which were related to tissue tolerance limits to create recommended weight limits. Compared to two-handed exertions, one-handed exertions resulted in decreased spinal compression and A/P shear loading (p < 0.001) but increased lateral shear (p < 0.001). Effects were likely driven by altered moment exposures attributable to altered torso kinematics. Differences between spinal loads for one- versus two-handed exertions were influenced by asymmetry (p < 0.001) and amplified at lower lift origin/destination heights, lower object masses and larger horizontal distances between the body and the load (p < 0.001). Practitioner summary: A biomechanical model was utilised to compare spinal loading for one versus two-handed lifting/lowering. Spinal loads in compression and A/P shear were reduced for one-handed relative to two-handed exertions. As current lifting guidelines cannot appropriately be applied to one-handed scenarios, one-handed weight limits protecting the lower back are presented herein. Abbreviations: LBD: low back disorder, EMG: electromyography, A/P: anterior/posterior, MVC: maximum voluntary contraction.

Spinal loading and lift style in confined vertical space.

The objective of this study was to investigate biomechanical loads on the lumbar spine as a function of working in a confined vertical space, consistent with baggage handling inside the baggage compartment of an airplane. Ten male subjects performed baggage handling tasks using confined (kneeling, sitting) and unconfined (stooping) lifting styles. Dependent measures of torso flexion and three-dimensional spinal loads were assessed with an electromyography-driven biomechanical model. Lifting exertions typical to airline baggage handling posed significant risk to the lumbar spine, regardless of lifting style. Statistically significant differences attributable to lift style (stooping, kneeling, sitting) were not observed for peak compressive, lateral shear, or resultant spinal loads, but lifting while kneeling decreased anterior/posterior (A/P) shear spinal loads relative to stooping (p = 0.02). Collectively, kneeling offers the greatest benefit when lifting in confined spaces because of the ability to keep the torso upright, subsequently reducing shear forces on the lumbar spine.

A biomechanical evaluation of potential ergonomic solutions for use by firefighter and EMS providers when lifting heavy patients in their homes.

Firefighters and EMS providers continue to be challenged when lifting heavy patients in their homes. This study investigated the biomechanical efficacy of four devices that could be used by two-person teams when lifting patients from the floor, from a reclining chair, or from a Simulated Inflatable Seat at chair height. Fourteen firefighter-paramedics, working in two-person teams, were instrumented with motion capture and electromyographic sensors. The Binder Lift™, the Simple Strap, and the Slip Preventer were used to lift patient actors, and were compared to current lifting methods. Postural data and the peak dynamic spine shear forces at the L5/S1 level were reduced when using the Simple Strap, the Binder Lift, and the Simulated Inflatable Seat. The Slip Preventer reduced spine flexion when the Binder Lift was not used. In summary, the tested devices can potentially reduce the biomechanical loads experienced by EMS providers as they lift and move patients.

Impact of two postural assist exoskeletons on biomechanical loading of the lumbar spine.

This study evaluated loading on the low back while wearing two commercially available postural assist exoskeletons. Ten male subjects lifted a box from multiple lift origins (combinations of vertical height and asymmetry) to a common destination using a squatting lifting technique with and without the use of either exoskeleton. Dependent measures included subject kinematics, moment arms between the torso or weight being lifted and the lumbar spine, and spinal loads as predicted by an electromyography-driven spine model. One of the exoskeletons tested (StrongArm Technologies™ FLx) reduced peak torso flexion at the shin lift origin, but differences in moment arms or spinal loads attributable to either of the interventions were not observed. Thus, industrial exoskeletons designed to control posture may not be beneficial in reducing biomechanical loads on the lumbar spine. Interventions altering the external manual materials handling environment (lift origin, load weight) may be more appropriate when implementation is fesible.

Effectiveness of a vacuum lifting system in reducing spinal load during airline baggage handling.

Information on spinal loading for using lift assist systems for airport baggage handling is lacking. We conducted a laboratory study to evaluate a vacuum lift system for reducing lumbar spinal loads during baggage loading/unloading tasks. Ten subjects performed the tasks using the industry average baggage weight of 14.5 kg on a typical two-shelved baggage cart with or without using the lift system (i.e. lifting technique). Repeated measures analysis of variance (2 tasks × 2 shelf heights x 2 techniques) was used. Spinal loads were estimated by an electromyography-driven biomechanical model. On average, the vacuum lift system reduced spinal compressive forces on the lumbar spine by 39% and below the 3400 N damage threshold. The system also resulted in a 25% reduction in the anterior-posterior shear force at the L5/S1 inferior endplate level. This study provides evidence for the potential to reduce spinal loads when using a vacuum lift system.

Investigation of human body vibration exposures on haul trucks operating at U.S. surface mines/quarries relative to haul truck activity.

Workers who operate mine haul trucks are exposed to whole-body vibration (WBV) on a routine basis. Researchers from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Pittsburgh Mining Research Division (PMRD) investigated WBV and hand-arm vibration (HAV) exposures for mine/quarry haul truck drivers in relation to the haul truck activities of dumping, loading, and traveling with and without a load. The findings show that WBV measures in weighted root-mean-square accelerations (aw) and vibration dose value (VDV), when compared to the ISO/ANSI and European Directive 2002/44/EC standards, were mostly below the Exposure Action Value (EAV) identified by the health guidance caution zone (HGCZ). Nevertheless, instances were recorded where the Exposure Limit Value (ELV) was exceeded by more than 500 to 600 percent for VDVx and awx, respectively. Researchers determined that these excessive levels occurred during the traveling empty activity, when the haul truck descended down grade into the pit loading area, sliding at times, on a wet and slippery road surface caused by rain and overwatering. WBV levels (not normalized to an 8-h shift) for the four haul truck activities showed mean awz levels for five of the seven drivers exceeding the ISO/ANSI EAV by 9-53 percent for the traveling empty activity. Mean awx and awz levels were generally higher for traveling empty and traveling loaded and lower for loading/dumping activities. HAV for measures taken on the steering wheel and shifter were all below the HGCZ which indicates that HAV is not an issue for these drivers/operators when handling steering and shifting control devices.

Biomechanical evaluation of exoskeleton use on loading of the lumbar spine.

The objective of this study was to investigate biomechanical loading to the low back as a result of wearing an exoskeletal intervention designed to assist in occupational work. Twelve subjects simulated the use of two powered hand tools with and without the use of a Steadicam vest with an articulation tool support arm in a laboratory environment. Dependent measures of peak and mean muscle forces in ten trunk muscles and peak and mean spinal loads were examined utilizing a dynamic electromyography-assisted spine model. The exoskeletal device increased both peak and mean muscle forces in the torso extensor muscles (p < 0.001). Peak and mean compressive spinal loads were also increased up to 52.5% and 56.8%, respectively, for the exoskeleton condition relative to the control condition (p < 0.001). The results of this study highlight the need to design exoskeletal interventions while anticipating how mechanical loads might be shifted or transferred with their use.

Biomechanically determined hand force limits protecting the low back during occupational pushing and pulling tasks.

Though biomechanically determined guidelines exist for lifting, existing recommendations for pushing and pulling were developed using a psychophysical approach. The current study aimed to establish objective hand force limits based on the results of a biomechanical assessment of the forces on the lumbar spine during occupational pushing and pulling activities. Sixty-two subjects performed pushing and pulling tasks in a laboratory setting. An electromyography-assisted biomechanical model estimated spinal loads, while hand force and turning torque were measured via hand transducers. Mixed modelling techniques correlated spinal load with hand force or torque throughout a wide range of exposures in order to develop biomechanically determined hand force and torque limits. Exertion type, exertion direction, handle height and their interactions significantly influenced dependent measures of spinal load, hand force and turning torque. The biomechanically determined guidelines presented herein are up to 30% lower than comparable psychophysically derived limits and particularly more protective for straight pushing. Practitioner Summary: This study utilises a biomechanical model to develop objective biomechanically determined push/pull risk limits assessed via hand forces and turning torque. These limits can be up to 30% lower than existing psychophysically determined pushing and pulling recommendations. Practitioners should consider implementing these guidelines in both risk assessment and workplace design moving forward.

Wheelchair pushing and turning: lumbar spine and shoulder loads and recommended limits.

The objective of this study was to determine how simulated manual wheelchair pushing influences biomechanical loading to the lumbar spine and shoulders. Sixty-two subjects performed simulated wheelchair pushing and turning in a laboratory. An electromyography-assisted biomechanical model was used to estimate spinal loads. Moments at the shoulder joint, external hand forces and net turning torque were also assessed. Multiple linear regression techniques were employed to develop biomechanically based wheelchair pushing guidelines relating resultant hand force or net torque to spinal load. Male subjects experienced significantly greater spinal loading (p < 0.01), and spine loads were also increased for wheelchair turning compared to straight wheelchair pushing (p < 0.001). Biomechanically determined maximum acceptable resultant hand forces were 17-18% lower than psychophysically determined limits. We conclude that manual wheelchair pushing and turning can pose biomechanical risk to the lumbar spine and shoulders. Psychophysically determined maximum acceptable push forces do not appear to be protective enough of this biomechanical risk. Practitioner Summary: This laboratory study investigated biomechanical risk to the low back and shoulders during simulated wheelchair pushing. Manual wheelchair pushing posed biomechanical risk to the lumbar spine (in compression and A/P shear) and to the shoulders. Biomechanically determined wheelchair pushing thresholds are presented and are more protective than the closest psychophysically determined equivalents.