STUDY DESIGN: The impact of various levels of mental processing and pacing (during lifting) on spine loading was monitored under laboratory conditions. OBJECTIVES: To explore how mental demands and pacing influence the biomechanical response and subsequent spine loading and, to determine whether individual characteristics have a modifying role in the responses. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Modern work often requires rapid physical exertions along with demands of mental processing (both psychosocial stressors). While the effect of physical workplace factors on spine loading has been widely documented, few studies have investigated the impact that interaction of psychosocial factors and individual factors has on spine loads. METHODS: For this study, 60 subjects lifted boxes while completing two types of mental processing tasks: 1) series tasks with decisions occurring before the act of lifting, and 2) simultaneous tasks with decisions occurring concurrently with the lift. For both of these mental processing conditions, two intensities of mental load were evaluated: simple and complex. Task pacing was also adjusted under slow and fast conditions. Finally, individual characteristics (personality and gender) were evaluated as potential modifiers. An electromyographically assisted model evaluated the three-dimensional spine loads under the experimental conditions. RESULTS: Simultaneous mental processing had the largest impact on the spine loads, with the complex intensity resulting in increases of 160 N with lateral shear, 80 N with anteroposterior shear, and 700 N with compression. Increased task pace produced greater lateral shear (by 20 N), anteroposterior shear (by 60 N), and compression loads (by 410 N). Gender and personality also influenced loadings by as much as 17%. CONCLUSIONS: Mental processing stress acted as a catalyst for the biomechanical responses, leading to intensified spine loading. Mental stress appeared to occur as a function of time pressures on task performance and resulted in less controlled movements and increases in trunk muscle coactivation. These adjustments significantly increased spine loading. These results suggest a potential mechanism for the increase in low back pain risk resulting from psychosocial stress caused by modern work demands.
STUDY DESIGN: The impact of various levels of mental processing and pacing (during lifting) on spine loading was monitored under laboratory conditions. OBJECTIVES: To explore how mental demands and pacing influence the biomechanical response and subsequent spine loading and, to determine whether individual characteristics have a modifying role in the responses. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Modern work often requires rapid physical exertions along with demands of mental processing (both psychosocial stressors). While the effect of physical workplace factors on spine loading has been widely documented, few studies have investigated the impact that interaction of psychosocial factors and individual factors has on spine loads. METHODS: For this study, 60 subjects lifted boxes while completing two types of mental processing tasks: 1) series tasks with decisions occurring before the act of lifting, and 2) simultaneous tasks with decisions occurring concurrently with the lift. For both of these mental processing conditions, two intensities of mental load were evaluated: simple and complex. Task pacing was also adjusted under slow and fast conditions. Finally, individual characteristics (personality and gender) were evaluated as potential modifiers. An electromyographically assisted model evaluated the three-dimensional spine loads under the experimental conditions. RESULTS: Simultaneous mental processing had the largest impact on the spine loads, with the complex intensity resulting in increases of 160 N with lateral shear, 80 N with anteroposterior shear, and 700 N with compression. Increased task pace produced greater lateral shear (by 20 N), anteroposterior shear (by 60 N), and compression loads (by 410 N). Gender and personality also influenced loadings by as much as 17%. CONCLUSIONS: Mental processing stress acted as a catalyst for the biomechanical responses, leading to intensified spine loading. Mental stress appeared to occur as a function of time pressures on task performance and resulted in less controlled movements and increases in trunk muscle coactivation. These adjustments significantly increased spine loading. These results suggest a potential mechanism for the increase in low back pain risk resulting from psychosocial stress caused by modern work demands.