Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2023;55(2):2244965.
doi: 10.1080/07853890.2023.2244965.

The effect of selected rest break activities on reaction time, balance, and perceived discomfort after one hour of simulated occupational whole-body vibration exposure in healthy adults

Wadena D Burnett  1 , Michael Tweten  1 , Udoka Okpalauwaekwe  2 , Catherine Trask  3 , Stephan Milosavljevic  1
Affiliations

The effect of selected rest break activities on reaction time, balance, and perceived discomfort after one hour of simulated occupational whole-body vibration exposure in healthy adults

Wadena D Burnett et al. Ann Med. 2023.

Abstract

Materials & methods: Eleven healthy adults participated in four 1-hour sessions of ecologically valid WBV exposure followed by one of four 5-minute activities: sitting, walking, 2 min of gaze stabilization exercise (GSE) coupled with 3 min of trunk mobility exercise (GSE + MOBIL), or 2 min of GSE coupled with a 3-minute walk (GSE + WALK). Baseline and post-activity measurements (rating of perceived discomfort, balance and postural sway measurements, 5-minute psychomotor vigilance task test) were submitted to a paired t-test to determine the effect of WBV exposure and activities on physical, cognitive, and sensorimotor systems and to a repeated measures ANOVA to determine any differences across activities.

Results: We observed degradation of the slowest 10% reaction speed outcomes between baseline and post-activity after walking (7.3%, p < 0.05) and sitting (8.6%, p < 0.05) but not after GSE + MOBIL or GSE + WALK activities. Slowest 10% reaction speed after GSE + MOBIL activity was faster than all other activities. The rating of perceived discomfort was higher after SIT and WALK activities. There were no notable differences in balance outcomes.

Conclusion: When compared to sitting for 5 min, an activity including GSE and an active component, such as walking or trunk mobility exercises, resulted in maintenance of reaction time after WBV exposure. If confirmed in occupational environments, GSE may provide a simple, rapid, effective, and inexpensive means to protect against decrements in reaction time after WBV exposure.

Keywords: Whole-body vibration; accident prevention; ergonomics; laboratory simulation; occupational exposure; reaction time.

Plain language summary

A 5-minute intervention activity after 1 hour of occupational whole-body vibration (WBV) exposure may provide protection against detriments in reaction time.Intervention activities that include a gaze stabilization exercise component maintained the slowest reaction speeds after 1 hour of WBV exposure, whereas sitting and walking activities resulted in a further slowing of the slowest reaction speeds.It may be possible for machinery operators to incorporate gaze stabilization activities in occupational environments, either in or out-of-cab, but further evaluation for feasibility and practicality of in-field adoption is required.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
In-lab whole body vibration (WBV) study protocol. Pre-study measurements include a rating of perceived discomfort (RPD), balance and postural sway measurements followed by a 5-minute psychomotor vigilance task (PVT) test (A) Participants were then exposed to 1-hour of WBV (B) Immediately following exposure, balance and postural sway measurements were repeated (C) Participants were then asked to perform one of four selected intervention activities: sitting for 5 min, walking for 5 min, gaze stabilization exercise (GSE) for 2 min and trunk mobility exercises for 3 min (GSE + MOBIL) or GSE for 2 min and walking for 3 min (GSE + WALK) (D). after the 5-minute intervention, post-intervention measurements included RPD, balance and postural sway measurement followed by a 5-minute PVT test (E) for a total test time of 1 h, 20 min. The session timeline is represented at the base of figure.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Gaze stabilization exercise (GSE), where participants were asked to focus on a marked point at eye-level approximately 1.5 m distance, while moving their head and neck in cervical flexion and extension, left and right rotation, and diagonally from left shoulder to upper right and right shoulder to upper left, switching movements every 4 repetitions at a comfortable pace.
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
Paired t-test results of cognitive outcomes between baseline and post-activity for each reaction time (RT) outcome: Mean RT (a), inverse RT (B), fastest 10% inverse RT (C), and slowest 10% inverse RT (D) across each activity: SIT, WALK, GSE + MOBIL, and GSE + WALK. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals of the mean. Significant differences between baseline and post-activity outcomes are noted with (*).
Figure 4.
Figure 4.
Repeated measures ANOVA results of normalized post-activity cognitive outcomes between all activities: SIT, WALK, GSE + MOBIL and GSE + WALK. Reaction time (RT) outcomes include mean RT (a), inverse RT (B), fastest 10% inverse RT(C), and slowest 10% inverse RT (D). Significant differences in normalized post-activity outcomes are noted with (*). normalized baseline values are included for comparison.
Figure 5.
Figure 5.
Repeated measures ANOVA results of normalized post-activity proprioceptive outcomes between all activities: SIT, WALK, GSE + MOBIL and GSE + WALK. Balance and postural sway outcomes, for both eyes open and eyes closed conditions, include: root mean square of postural sway (RMS), mean velocity of postural sway, and ellipse area. Significant differences in normalized post-activity outcomes are noted with (*). normalized baseline values are included for comparison.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Eger T, Stevenson J, Boileau PÉ, et al. . Predictions of health risks associated with the operation of load-haul-dump mining vehicles : part 1—analysis of whole-body vibration exposure using ISO 2631-1 and ISO-2631-5 standards. Int J Ind Ergon. 2008;38(9-10):1–16. doi: 10.1016/j.ergon.2007.08.012. - DOI
    1. Smets MPH, Eger TR, Grenier SG.. Whole-body vibration experienced by haulage truck operators in surface mining operations : a comparison of various analysis methods utilized in the prediction of health risks. Appl Ergon. 2010;41(6):763–770. doi: 10.1016/j.apergo.2010.01.002. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Wolfgang R, Burgess-Limerick R.. Using consumer electronic devices to estimate whole-body vibration exposure. J Occup Environ Hyg. 2014;11(6):D77–D81. doi: 10.1080/15459624.2014.888073. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Oullier O, Kavounoudias A, Duclos C, et al. . Countering postural post effects following prolonged exposure to whole-body vibration: a sensorimotor treatment. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2009;105(2):235–245. doi: 10.1007/s00421-008-0894-4. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Rahmani R, Aliabadi M, Golmohammadi R, et al. . Body physiological responses of city bus drivers subjected to noise and vibration exposure in working environment. Heliyon. 2022;8(8):e10329. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e10329. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types