ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2023
Evaluation of In-Cloth versus On-Skin Sensors for Measuring Trunk and Upper Arm Postures and Movements.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trunk and upper arm postures and movements among older workers in physically demanding occupations.Annals of work exposures and health · 2026Article
- Aligning Computer Vision with Expert Assessment: An Adaptive Hybrid Framework for Real-Time Fatigue Assessment in Smart Manufacturing.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Review
- Reliability and Accuracy of Standard Reference Procedures for Measurements of Trunk and Arm Postures in Ergonomics.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Smart workwear systems with embedded inertial measurement unit sensors are developed for convenient ergonomic risk assessment of occupational activities. However, its measurement accuracy can be affected by potential cloth artifacts, which have not been previously assessed. Therefore, it is crucial to evaluate the accuracy of sensors placed in the workwear systems for research and practice purposes. This study aimed to compare in-cloth and on-skin sensors for assessing upper arms and trunk postures and movements, with the on-skin sensors as the reference. Five simulated work tasks were performed by twelve subjects (seven women and five men). Results showed that the mean (±SD) absolute cloth-skin sensor differences of the median dominant arm elevation angle ranged between 1.2° (±1.4) and 4.1° (±3.5). For the median trunk flexion angle, the mean absolute cloth-skin sensor differences ranged between 2.7° (±1.7) and 3.7° (±3.9). Larger errors were observed for the 90th and 95th percentiles of inclination angles and inclination velocities. The performance depended on the tasks and was affected by individual factors, such as the fit of the clothes. Potential error compensation algorithms need to be investigated in future work. In conclusion, in-cloth sensors showed acceptable accuracy for measuring upper arm and trunk postures and movements on a group level. Considering the balance of accuracy, comfort, and usability, such a system can potentially be a practical tool for ergonomic assessment for researchers and practitioners.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.