Container Characteristics and Maximum Acceptable Weight of Lift<sup>1</sup>

Garg, Arun; Saxena, Umesh

doi:10.1177/001872088002200409

Cited by 56 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This finding was consistent with the simple lifting task where handle was found to result in a greater maximum acceptable weight of lifting 17) . In this study, all subjects were asked to place their hands beneath the bottom of box in the conditions of box without handle, which damaged the security and stability of the load carriage.…”

Section: Effect Of Handlesupporting

confidence: 86%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Maximum Acceptable Weight of Manual Load Carriage for Young Taiwanese Males

Cheng

Lee

2006

Ind Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examined the maximum acceptable weight of carriage (MAWC) for young Taiwanese males experienced in manual load carriage tasks. The elements of the examined load carriage tasks included lifting a box from the floor to the waist height, turning around while holding the box, carrying the box at the waist height for a distance, lowering the box to the floor, turning around, and walking unloaded back to the original position. Subjects performed the load carriage tasks over different levels of carriage distance, frequency, box width (sagittal dimension), and handle according to a response surface design. The results showed that subjects' MAWC decreased with carriage distance, frequency and box width, while heart rate and rate of perceived exertion (RPE) increased with carriage distance, frequency and box width. The MAWC for box with handles was on average 1.5 kg more than that for box without handles, while the effects of handle on heart rate and RPE were very trivial.

show abstract

Section: Effect Of Handlesupporting

confidence: 86%

“…Similar to simple lifting tasks 17) , subjects selected a lower MAWC for a wider box in load carriage tasks. Morrissey and Liou 6) revealed that the MAWC declined by 15% as the box width increased from 15 cm to 55 cm.…”

Section: Effect Of Box Widthmentioning

confidence: 99%

Maximum Acceptable Weight of Manual Load Carriage for Young Taiwanese Males

Cheng

Lee

2006

Ind Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Culling stripped bones allows the forager to discard less useful material (i.e., bone) and transport a more valuable load comprising more useful animal products. Filleting meat and segmenting stripped bone creates smaller sized and more easily transported packages that require less energy to carry than do bulky and oversized pieces (e.g., Garg and Saxena, 1980;Smith and Jiang, 1984). Moreover, part modification gives carriers greater flexibility in positioning loads on their body to reduce transport costs.…”

Section: Relationship Between Field Processing and Utilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

What Explains the Carcass Field Processing and Transport Decisions of Contemporary Hunter-Gatherers? Measures of Economic Anatomy and Zooarchaeological Skeletal Part Representation

Lupo

2006

J Archaeol Method Theory

120

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper uses rationale derived from central place foraging models to explore the factors that guide the carcass processing and transport decisions of modern hunters. Using data derived from butchering experiments, I test different economic indices that purportedly reflect the field processing and transport decisions of contemporary African Hadza hunter-gatherers. The results show that no single index predicts part processing and transport for the species examined in this analysis. Processing and transport decisions are, however, patterned in ways that are consistent with theoretical predictions. While similar processes likely guide carcass treatment and transport decisions among all hunter-gatherers, different ecological, social, and historical constraints define the range of solutions to problems involving carcass treatment. In this specific example, intertaxonomic differences in carcass size and bone properties constrain how the trade-offs between field processing and transport costs are resolved. I conclude by suggesting ways in which analysts might make use of central place foraging rationale and models to explain variation in skeletal representation and abundances across time and space.

show abstract

“…This need not suggest, however, that length and diameter each influence perceived heaviness in the same way. In fact, other research has shown that increasing volume by increasing length alone may actually produce an increase in perceived heaviness, a pattern opposite to the classic size-weight illusion (Amazeen, 1997;Ayoub, Mital, Bakken, Asfour, & Bethea, 1980;Ciriello & Snook, 1983;Garg & Badger, 1986;Garg & Saxena, 1980;Mital & Fard, stimuli, there was an increased probability of correctly making a lighter response and decreased probability of correctly making a heavier response. Likewise, mass had a significant effect on responses of perceived length; however, the direction of the effect was not consistent.…”

Section: Size Shape and Modalitymentioning

confidence: 77%

Sensory and perceptual interactions in weight perception

Valdez

Amazeen

2008

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Perceiving the weight of an object in the hand is common to many real-world and laboratory activities. Despite its ubiquity, though, it is not a simple process. When we grasp an object to judge its weight, we sense its physical properties (e.g., its mass), process this information to form a percept of weight, and then make a decision about how to transform this internal percept into an outward report of heaviness. 1 These three subprocesses-sensory, perceptual, and decisional-combine to guide our reports of perceived heaviness. These subprocesses also provide three opportunities for features other than mass (e.g., size) to influence perceived heaviness. Disentangling such effects (i.e., determining how each feature influences each subprocess) can be difficult because each can produce equivalent effects on perceptual reports of heaviness. However, contemporary psychophysical techniques, based on signal detection theory, offer a way to distinguish the effects of sensory, perceptual, and decisional subprocesses for multidimensional stimuli. In the present experiments, such multidimensional signal detection techniques were applied in order to determine the influence of length, diameter, and mass on haptically perceived heaviness with and without vision. Sensory, Perceptual, and Decisional Subprocesses in Weight PerceptionThe process of generating a perceptual report of heaviness can be divided into three subprocesses (Amazeen, 1999;Oberle & Amazeen, 2003). The first is the sensory subprocess, in which the observer detects the physical property or properties relevant to perceiving weight. The second is the perceptual subprocess, in which there is a percept or other psychological or neural code associated with the object's weight. The third is the decisional subprocess, in which the observer uses a criterion or some other rule to generate a perceived heaviness response based on the experienced percept of weight. The fact that multiple processes intervene between stimulus and response presents a major challenge to psychophysical research; namely, a perceptual report is not just a measure of one's percept but represents a combination of, or interaction among, stimulus, percept, and decision. Complicating matters even further is the fact that multiple processes may produce mathematically equivalent distributions of responses (e.g., Cohen, 2003). Psychophysical techniques based on signal detection theory (Green & Swets, 1966) can be useful in making such distinctions among subprocesses. Figure 1 illustrates these effects in the context of unidimensional signal detection theory. The participant's report of heaviness (in this case, heavier or lighter) is a function of the physical variable mass, the location of the percept along the dimension of perceived weight (measured by d ), and the decision criterion (C ) used.Weight perception presents additional challenges, though, which necessitate the use of methodological and analytical techniques that go beyond unidimensional signal detection theory. The main challenge is that t...

show abstract

Container Characteristics and Maximum Acceptable Weight of Lift¹

Cited by 56 publications

References 7 publications

Maximum Acceptable Weight of Manual Load Carriage for Young Taiwanese Males

Maximum Acceptable Weight of Manual Load Carriage for Young Taiwanese Males

What Explains the Carcass Field Processing and Transport Decisions of Contemporary Hunter-Gatherers? Measures of Economic Anatomy and Zooarchaeological Skeletal Part Representation

Sensory and perceptual interactions in weight perception

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Container Characteristics and Maximum Acceptable Weight of Lift1

Cited by 56 publications

References 7 publications

Maximum Acceptable Weight of Manual Load Carriage for Young Taiwanese Males

Maximum Acceptable Weight of Manual Load Carriage for Young Taiwanese Males

What Explains the Carcass Field Processing and Transport Decisions of Contemporary Hunter-Gatherers? Measures of Economic Anatomy and Zooarchaeological Skeletal Part Representation

Sensory and perceptual interactions in weight perception

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Container Characteristics and Maximum Acceptable Weight of Lift¹