152 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10503055)
1. Significance of biomechanical and physiological variables during the determination of maximum acceptable weight of lift.
Jorgensen MJ; Davis KG; Kirking BC; Lewis KE; Marras WS
Ergonomics; 1999 Sep; 42(9):1216-32. PubMed ID: 10503055
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. An investigation of perceived exertion via whole body exertion and direct muscle force indicators during the determination of the maximum acceptable weight of lift.
Davis KG; Jorgensen MJ; Marras WS
Ergonomics; 2000 Feb; 43(2):143-59. PubMed ID: 10675055
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Postural effects on biomechanical and psychophysical weight-lifting limits.
Chaffin DB; Page GB
Ergonomics; 1994 Apr; 37(4):663-76. PubMed ID: 8187750
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Relation between spinal load factors and the high-risk probability of occupational low-back disorder.
Granata KP; Marras WS
Ergonomics; 1999 Sep; 42(9):1187-99. PubMed ID: 10503053
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Maximum acceptable weight of lift for side and back lifting.
Lee K; Waikar A; Aghazadeh F
J Hum Ergol (Tokyo); 1990 Jun; 19(1):3-11. PubMed ID: 2092069
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. A comprehensive analysis of low-back disorder risk and spinal loading during the transferring and repositioning of patients using different techniques.
Marras WS; Davis KG; Kirking BC; Bertsche PK
Ergonomics; 1999 Jul; 42(7):904-26. PubMed ID: 10424181
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Biomechanical risk factors for occupationally related low back disorders.
Marras WS; Lavender SA; Leurgans SE; Fathallah FA; Ferguson SA; Allread WG; Rajulu SL
Ergonomics; 1995 Feb; 38(2):377-410. PubMed ID: 7895740
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Effect of foot movement and an elastic lumbar back support on spinal loading during free-dynamic symmetric and asymmetric lifting exertions.
Marras WS; Jorgensen MJ; Davis KG
Ergonomics; 2000 May; 43(5):653-68. PubMed ID: 10877482
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Maximum acceptable weights for asymmetric lifting of Chinese females.
Wu SP
Appl Ergon; 2003 May; 34(3):215-24. PubMed ID: 12737921
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. The effects of container size, frequency and extended horizontal reach on maximum acceptable weights of lifting for female industrial workers.
Ciriello VM
Appl Ergon; 2007 Jan; 38(1):1-5. PubMed ID: 16616883
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Spine loading as a function of lift frequency, exposure duration, and work experience.
Marras WS; Parakkat J; Chany AM; Yang G; Burr D; Lavender SA
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon); 2006 May; 21(4):345-52. PubMed ID: 16310299
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Dynamic biomechanical modelling of symmetric and asymmetric lifting tasks in restricted postures.
Gallagher S; Hamrick CA; Love AC; Marras WS
Ergonomics; 1994 Aug; 37(8):1289-310. PubMed ID: 7925254
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. How to lift a box that is too large to fit between the knees.
Kingma I; Faber GS; van Dieën JH
Ergonomics; 2010 Oct; 53(10):1228-38. PubMed ID: 20865606
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Psychophysical acceptability and perception of load heaviness by females.
Karwowski W
Ergonomics; 1991 Apr; 34(4):487-96. PubMed ID: 1860464
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Spine loading during asymmetric lifting using one versus two hands.
Marras WS; Davis KG
Ergonomics; 1998 Jun; 41(6):817-34. PubMed ID: 9629066
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Association between spinal loads and the psychophysical determination of maximum acceptable force during pushing tasks.
Le P; Dufour J; Monat H; Rose J; Huber Z; Alder E; Radin Umar RZ; Hennessey B; Dutt M; Marras WS
Ergonomics; 2012; 55(9):1104-14. PubMed ID: 22676341
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Determining the minimum sampling rate needed to accurately quantify cumulative spine loading from digitized video.
Andrews DM; Callaghan JP
Appl Ergon; 2003 Nov; 34(6):589-95. PubMed ID: 14559419
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. The effectiveness of commonly used lifting assessment methods to identify industrial jobs associated with elevated risk of low-back disorders.
Marras WS; Fine LJ; Ferguson SA; Waters TR
Ergonomics; 1999 Jan; 42(1):229-45. PubMed ID: 9973881
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Psychophysically acceptable weights for a combination lifting task using bags with handles.
Fredericks TK; Fernandez JE; Rodrigues CC
J Hum Ergol (Tokyo); 1994 Dec; 23(2):101-9. PubMed ID: 7730595
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Changes in spine loading patterns throughout the workday as a function of experience, lift frequency, and personality.
Chany AM; Parakkat J; Yang G; Burr DL; Marras WS
Spine J; 2006; 6(3):296-305. PubMed ID: 16651224
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
