The focus of this study was to assess the amount of error present in severa
l approaches that have been commonly used to estimate the cumulative spinal
loading during manual materials handling tasks. Three male subjects perfor
med three sagittal plane lifting tasks of varying loads and postural requir
ements. Video recordings of the tasks were digitized and a biomechanical mo
del was used to calculate the spinal loading (compression, joint shear, rea
ction shear, and flexion/extension moment) at L4/L5 for each frame of data.
The 'gold standard' for cumulative loading experienced by the subjects was
obtained by integrating the resultant biomechanical model outputs for the
entire lifting cycle. Five approaches that quantify cumulative spinal loadi
ng, four that use discrete measures and one that reduces the number of fram
es used (5 Hz), were used and compared with the gold standard. The four met
hods using discrete measures to quantify the cumulative demands of a task r
esulted in substantial errors (average error across task and subjects was 2
7-69%). Reducing the number of frames of data processed to 5 frames/s prese
rved the time varying information and was the only approach examined that d
id not induce significant error into the cumulative loading estimates. This
study indicates that errors in cumulative spinal loading estimates can be
large depending upon the approach used, which will hinder any progress in d
eveloping a dose-response link between cumulative exposure and an increased
risk of low-back pain or injury.