Consilience in Situated Physical Ergonomics

NASCENT SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, LLC
BRINGING SCIENCE TO LIFE

Consilience in Situated Physical Ergonomics

Toward the Future Perfect Progressive Plural Tense
of Work and Life in the Wild

Prepared for Aptima Inc.
and the
U.S. Army Natick Soldier Research & Development Center

Gary E. Riccio, Ph.D.

August 10, 2012

Riccio, 10AUG2012 Consilience

1
Programmatic Context for Innovation in Situated Physical Ergonomics

The following text is taken from an Aptima report to the U.S. Army Research,
Development and Engineering Center (Aptima, 2012). It describes the motivation for
Aptimas Cognitive Task Analysis (CTA) that was the context for Dr. Riccios
innovations in situated physical ergonomics. A concise report of those innovations
follows. While the work was directed toward an understanding of Soldier tasks and
capabilities, it is applicable to many other tasks in the workplace and in the activities of
daily living.

Full Spectrum Operations demand that the Army be capable of performing
effectively across a wide variety of missions and in a range of environments (e.g.,
Headquarters Department of the Army, 2008; 2002/2008). This necessity implies
that small units and individual Soldiers must also be able to perform a wide range
of tasks building on abilities such as problem solving and initiative (e.g., Riccio,
Diedrich, & Cortes, 2010). Indeed, to be successful, the 21
st
Century Soldier must
possess competencies including but not limited to character and accountability;
comprehensive fitness; adaptability and initiative; critical thinking and problem
solving; as well as tactical and technical competence (Department of the Army,
2011a). Similarly, drawing on these abilities at the Squad level, Soldiers must
work as a team to effectively conduct a range of tasks, in varied contexts, ranging
from conduct attack to conduct low-level information operations to maintain
situational awareness (Department of the Army, 2011b). The challenge, however,
is that performance depends on multiple factors such as previous training,
equipment, teammates, the environment, and the relative abilities of the
adversary.

Accordingly, the U.S. Army Natick Soldier Research, Development and
Engineering Center (NSRDEC) is investigating the effects of a key factor, load,
on Soldier performance including cognitive, biomechanical, and physiological
influences. Load is an essential issue to understand due to the ever changing tools
that have accompanied and will continue to accompany modernization of the
battlefield. Almost any introduction of novel equipment impacts Soldier load,
necessitating tradeoffs in mobility, lethality, and survivability. A key challenge
is therefore to understand, anticipate, and facilitate these tradeoffs in order to
optimally impact Soldier and Squad performance

Aptima is working with NSRDEC to develop a framework and associated
measurement library for understanding how effects of load, as measured in the
laboratory, are related to impact on Soldier and Squad behavior. This work is
proceeding through the development of Performance Indicators (PIs), which are
observable behaviors that can be used to assess Soldier and Squad performance.
These PIs are linked to critical Squad tasks, and associated events in the 72 hour
scenario, as well as laboratory tasks and measures designed to explore aspects of
cognition and biomechanics that are likely impacted by load. To facilitate
linking of laboratory findings to Soldier and Squad behaviors, the framework
includes a translational layer that provides information regarding context and
Soldier and Squad requirements that impact what must be done, and
consequently, what must be measured. As a result, the framework serves to
enable predictions of how load might affect cognition and biomechanics, and
therefore, how load might impact Soldier and Squad behavior.

2
Consilience in Situated Physical Ergonomics:
Toward the Future Perfect Progressive Plural Tense of Work and Life in the Wild

The original intent for the work summarized in this report was to integrate
cognitive science with the physical and biological sciences, most notably the
disciplines associated with biomechanics, in ways that can facilitate transition of
research to the field for tasks associated with Soldiering in the contemporary
operating environment. Making efficacious connections between such research
and reality requires nothing less than crossing the common boundaries between
mind and body, between an individual and the surroundings, between persons
and things, and between initiative and accountability. The theory and
methodology outlined in this report are being developed to help with these
challenging dimensions of translation.

There are several noteworthy aspects of the approach we are developing. One is
to create a productive synergy between quantitative and qualitative
methodologies so we can utilize both the laboratory and narrative in
understanding the intimate and generative interrelationships between behavior
and experience. The most exciting implication of this nexus is to bring the study
of behavior out of the razors edge of the present into the full expanse of time
that influences human thinking and experience in ways that transcend physical
causality while remaining grounded in the physics of human action in the world.

Another important aspect of this work is the concept of nesting. This is more like
engineering synthesis than scientific analysis but not so starkly as most work in
modeling. Nesting allows us to put together scientific studies ostensibly of
different kinds to appreciate behavior in more realistic or actual settings of work
and life. At the same time, it can generate new directions for analysis that can be
quite focused without being limited to the conventional boundaries of familiar
scientific disciplines. To facilitate nesting, a periodic table is presented for
human movement that can be applied to many situations of work and the
activities of daily living.

The periodic table represents an ontology for human movement with concepts
that map across different epistemologies or ways of thinking about human
movement. While the periodic table is a guide to synthesis, the associated
ontology provides a framework within which to catalogue scientific paradigms
and particular studies. A sample of such a transdisciplinary library is included as
an appendix to this report.

1. Leveraging the Cognitive Task Analysis

Aptimas Cognitive Task Analysis (CTA) led to a large number of useful performance
indicators (PI) that, of necessity, are directly relevant to cognition (Aptima, 2012). The
hallmark of human cognition is the ability to comprehend things beyond the moment and
beyond the situation at hand through such processes as remembering, imagining,
anticipating, inductively inferring, inter-temporally reasoning, computationally reasoning,
comparing, deciding, and intending. Biomechanics and other disciplines pertaining to
human movement, on the other hand, are first and foremost about processes that play out
in the moment and in the situation at hand. Thus, the vast majority of PI do not map to a
compact or homogeneous set of physical or biological processes.

3

Our vision for an integration of cognition with the physical and biological
sciences, in the wild, required a turn and an associated methodological
innovation.

Our transdisciplinary challenge leveraged the fact that the PI are more than a large set of
relevant behavioral observables. They are a highly structured set of observables generally
with subject-predicate-object implications. They are the seeds for telling a story. In fact,
many of the PI were elicited from subject matter experts (SME) in the context of telling
about their first-hand experiences as ground Soldiers and the meaning that these
experiences had for them and others. The 72-hour scenario that provided the backdrop for
Aptimas elicitation of PI inexorably led these experience fragments to be woven into
stories. Past, present, and future were intertwined in the discussion of experience
fragments and increasingly so as the richness of the stories evolved across multiple
interactions with SMEs. Issues pertaining to fatigue and thermoregulation, for example,
explicitly emerged in the discussion of time periods on the order of days and three-
dimensional spatial scales on the order of kilometers. It also became clear that cause-
effect relationships among past, present, and future were exceedingly important over
much shorter times scales on the order of seconds to minutes and over spatial scales on
the order of meters, that is, on spatiotemporal scales of more extensive relevance to
human movement science.

One of our methodological innovations was to initiate a process, concurrent with the
CTA, of collaboratively reflecting on experience fragments of our SMEs that pertained to
human movement. Typically, the time scale over which this telling and reflection took
place was longer than the experience that was being described. This allowed us, in a
sense, to get inside the head of the Soldier with respect to the experience of human
movement. We refer to this level of discourse as micro-experiences (Riccio, Diedrich,
& Cortez, 2010). On the foundation of the CTA, our discussion of micro-experiences
allowed us to reflect on movement as task directed and organized, that is, as purposeful
and operationally relevant. We self-consciously tried to talk about these experience
fragments in the progressive tenses. This was not the most natural way to tell a story but,
even when used occasionally, it helped us stay in the moment and avoid lapsing into
third-person descriptions. We also tried to talk about micro-experiences in the second-
person voice but that was more difficult. It required a level of shared experience that
mere conversation could not achieve, thus it required another methodological innovation
(see section 2).

The following vignettes are examples of micro-experiences we discussed, although they
are not literal transcriptions. They are not taken from a single conversation but they
capture the gist of a few themes that cut across several conversations. They are a bit
stylized to emphasize the way we believe the methodology should be used.

Vignette example 1

I am looking at a wall that we would have to move over, around, or
through to reach the house where a high value target (HVT) may be
hiding. I consider that my teammate, who is a breacher, may need two
charges or other special breaching tools to get through the door of the
house because often these houses have double doors, a metal outer door
and a wooden inner door. Our decisions about how to approach the

4
house, and carrying what, will have been easier if I can get to the house
and check out the situation. I am thinking about the amount of time it
would take to get past the wall in various ways to approach the house in
a timely fashion without being detected. I look over to a relatively new
teammate, he looks back, and we both know what the decision will be
even though we dont have a lot of experience together. We both know
that he will get down on all fours in front of the wall and I will use his
back as a step from which to jump to the top of the wall. I am thinking
about the kit I am carrying, what I am wearing, what I can take over the
wall with me, and how that will affect my movement over the wall.

Vignette example 2

I remember a day when I was getting ready to do my daily PT. I
remember myself remembering how important it was that I was
physically fit for a rush to an objective that followed a long march. Then
I remember being surprised by a thought that seemed at first to have
nothing to do with PT. I remember myself remembering how difficult it
was for me to cut on the uneven terrain with some new kit I was carrying
with me. I felt clumsy and almost slipped and stumbled because of the
unfamiliar way the kit moved on my body when I made abrupt
movements or changes in direction. I remember that on that day of PT,
as a result of reflection on my experience with the new kit, that I should
try doing PT with my kit so I might become more familiar with it.
Subsequently, this has become my practice. PT has become about
learning to move with my kit, to have it feel like it is part of me, and not
just about physical fitness. I no loner think solely about speed, distance,
or repetitions when doing PT. I think about Soldiering. PT has become
training, training has become an objective, a Soldiers task, not just time
spent usefully preparing nor just waiting to do a Soldiers tasks. My kit
feels like it is part of me yet I have not lost my knowledge of what I can
do slick. Strangely I notice, for example, that I am less likely to bend
over and check what is under a table when I am carrying a full load. I
wonder what this means. I wonder what it would have meant if I didnt
notice this.

The first vignette represents the most important theme in our discussions, that of flow
and transition in tactical thinking and action (thinking in action). These are deep
concepts that could not be more practical. At a high level, they refer to a kind of
momentum of individual and small unit actions that can survive the unpredictability of
the operating environment, from moment to moment, whether hostile or not. These
concepts are as much about biomechanics (e.g., physical constraints on action and
multiple physical solutions to a problem at hand) as about cognition (e.g, outward
orientation, adaptability) if not the practical overlap between these domains. The second
vignette illustrates a related area of overlap between cognition and biomechanics, ones
understanding of ones own capabilities. Whether implicit or explicit, and whether
veridical or not, this self-knowledge is critical to decisions made in the moment that can
have immediate life and death consequences. Of necessity, knowledge of ones own
capabilities and those of others also is invaluable in planning, and the consequences are
important even though they are delayed.


5
More generally, the details that emerged from these discussions resulted in a growing list
of human movement tasks that could be described in ways that would be recognizable
and understandable both to Soldiers and scientists (see section 3). They also enabled
another innovation, Quick Look events, that allowed us to share experiences more
directly than through words alone (see section 2, Figure 1).

Figure 1. Broader task analysis for biomechanics (see sections 2-3).

2 Collaborative Experience in Quick Look Events

Our collaborative reflection on micro-experiences both required and enabled a deeper
level of shared experience. The vignettes around which this reflection centered were in
many ways as detailed and connected as a script for a play or at least as the framework
for an improvisational play. We thus were able to create situations, much like rock drills
in the Army, in which we all could participate and share experiences on which we would
be able to reflect collaboratively. We were able do so concurrent with the experiences
and subsequent to them. We refer to these improvisational, shared experiences as Quick
Look events. Unique and essential attributes of Quick Looks are highlighted below:

Situated collaborative problem solving in which dialogue is grounded in aspects
of a situation that are collectively observable and verifiable and thus less
obfuscated by differences in jargon and unspecified assumptions. Shared
experience in a rich setting of relevant observables provides a plethora of
boundary objects that facilitate communication and connections among
disparate communities of practice (e.g., in the sense of Wenger, 1998). This is as
important in bridging the gap between different scientific disciplines as it is
between Soldiers and scientists (cf., Trochim, Marcus, Msse, et al., 2008).


6
While not necessary, outdoor settings are preferred for Quick Looks. The reason
for an outdoor setting often is confounded with the need for full immersion in an
environment that allows for mobility, multiple vantage points, and
omnidirectional perception (e.g., land navigation, aiming at multiple distances,
controlling inhabited or uninhabited vehicles, locating friend or foe), and in many
cases to provide realism that is difficult to simulate or represent (e.g., non-
Hookean dynamics of sand, mud, snow).

Shared situation awareness (SA) is the fundamental determinant of value, and
this is not limited to outdoor demonstrations even if it is considerably easier to
achieve outdoors for many tasks. Shared situation awareness, as opposed to
identical situation awareness, is useful to the extent that relatively small
differences in vantage point blend first-person and third-person perspectives.
This, in turn, fosters insightful collaborative reflection (e.g., Hamaoui, 2011).

Implicit in the value of shared SA is the opportunity for concurrent reciprocal
influence among participations. The coupling between shared SA and reciprocal
influence gives participants "inescapable accountability" for the influence they
have on each other. They share their engagement with the world. They co-exist.
Sharing the experience of such connections, and the meaning it implies, enables a
deeper understanding of team dynamics. Quick Looks enable communication
from the second-person standpoint that otherwise is difficult without
contemporaneous shared experience (Riccio, Diedrich, & Cortez, 2010).

A value added, that generally is quite considerable, is that outdoor experiences
lend themselves to large-scale attendance and optional participation. Outdoor
demonstrations can allow attendees to move rather easily between passive
observation and active participation. Accordingly, they can be designed to foster
initiative, improvisation, and serendipity (Riccio, Diedrich, & Cortez, 2010).

We conducted two Quick Looks during the period of performance. One was at a site for
military operations in urban terrain (MOUT) in an undisclosed location (Figure 2). The
other was on hiking trails at Mount Monadnock, NH (Figure 3). At the MOUT site, we
focused on the task of enter and clear a room and setting up a traffic control point
spread over a two-day period. At Mount Monadnock, over approximately eight hours, we
focused on land navigation during the approach phase of search and attack.

Our principal operational SME approached the Quick Looks as rehearsals such as rock
drills. In his approach to rehearsals, he periodically breaks the squad into teams to
generate discussion about their roles and responsibilities, to allow for initiative, and
sharing the meaning of the task and how it is approached. Normally, in these breakout
discussions during the rock drills, teams discuss operational issues and context. Our
adaptation is that we allow the scientists to use this as an opportunity to introduce their
respective scientific perspectives on the activities and task at hand. When the operational
SME is not with a particular team introducing operational context, the team can take the
discussion in whatever direction they like.


7

Figure 2. Collaborative experience in Enter and Clear a Room for Quick Look #1.

Figure 3. Collaborative experience in land navigation during Quick Look #2.


8

In addition to collaborative reflection and extemporaneous discussion, the Quick Looks
included walk-throughs of events that normally occur very quickly (e.g., breach, clearing
a room) in addition to conducting the event at normal speed. Typical (moving) vantage
points of various members of a team were captured using video cameras. Video and still
photographs also were taken from third-person perspectives.

An important element of the Quick Looks was to appreciate 4d terrain. Four
dimensional (4d) terrain considers apertures (e.g., windows, doors, partial enclosures),
passageways (e.g., paths, hallways), obstacles (e.g., furniture, clutter, vegetation,
outcroppings), and barriers (e.g., walls, fortifications) as constraints on traversability that
alter the manner and speed with which a space can be traversed. 4d terrain brings time
into the three cardinal dimensions of space but as an outcome rather than as a causal
variable. The layout of a building interior, for example, has a significant impact on
entering and clearing a room. In mountainous terrain, even with contour maps and
satellite imagery, it may be difficult or impossible to appreciate what one can see from a
particular place on the map.

In wooded terrain, it is difficult to appreciate what one can see through the clutter even
with photographs from particular vantage points with the relevant seasonal foliage.
Inside the 4d terrain, motion parallax (e.g., head movements) and the three-dimensional
spatial vision it enhances helps overcome the intentional or natural camouflage of color,
size, and shape of optical texture in the surroundings. In all environments, the constraints
of natural surfaces and clutter on locomotion are difficult or impossible to appreciate
without actually experiencing them. Rehearsals in complex terrain foster thinking that is
more topological than geometric, and that is more dynamical than kinematic. These are
just a few examples of the operationally relevant considerations that we were able to
address in considerable scientific and operational detail as a result of our shared
experience in Quick Looks.

Situated collaborative problem solving in Quick Looks had a direct and
powerful influence on our literature review, recommendations, and weighting
of promising directions in the scientific support for design, evaluation, and
planning of Soldier load.

3 Behavioral-Experiental Ontology: A Periodic Table for Human Movement

Collaborative reflection on micro-experiences and sharing those experiences in Quick
Look events have been invaluable methods of collaboration within our diverse team and
with diverse stakeholders for R&D pertaining to Soldier load. They were not sufficient,
however, for a sustained scientific investigation in which systematic traceable progress
can be made. We needed a shared conceptual framework within which a diversity of
stakeholders could communicate effectively about expectations and outcomes of the
transdisciplinary program of research (Flyvberg, 2001; Msse, Moser, Stokols, et al.,
2008; Stokols, Fuqua, Gress, et al., 2003).

The science of transdisciplinary science emphasizes the important of concept maps and
logic models that aid communication among communities of practice with different
jargon and assumptions. They are a source of indicators (or near-term outcomes) with
respect to which progress in a systematic integrated program of research can be traced
over time (Quinlan, Kane, & Trochim, 2008, Trochim, Marcus, Msse, et al., 2008). The

9
development of concept maps typically begins with talking points, considerations, and
points of converging interest that can be communicated in a language that is
understandable by people from different disciplines. There can be hundreds of items in
such a shared ontology. Various psychometric methods then can be used to organize the
items into a map that one can use to understand the relationship of ones own community
of practice to another community of practice (e.g., different scientific disciplines).
Concept maps help one become a more informed consumer of information from another
community or discipline.

The best concept maps promote discovery and innovation, that is, emergent
properties in the integration of different disciplines rather than mere
comparisons and analogies (Rosenfield, 1992).

Collaborative reflection and Quick Look events led to a list of human movement
concepts described in ways that would be recognizable and understandable both to
Soldiers and scientists from a variety of disciplines. For the most part, the concepts were
described in the language of everyday experience (Figure 4). In particular, the concepts
refer to observable behavior that is sufficiently familiar experientially to be associated
with common words or phrases. There were some exceptions where the concept could not
be expressed in any compact way in nonscientific and nonmilitary jargon (e.g.,
oculomotor dynamics, defilade posture). Such exceptions are less problematic due to the
structure of the concept map (i.e., our ontology for human movement) in which less
familiar terms generally are nested within broader categories that are more familiar.

A taxonomic numbering scheme is used for the ontology (i.j.k-l.m.n) for several reason:
(a) to facilitate navigation through any associated visualization or tabulation, (b) to reveal
gaps and shortfalls in the scientific community with respect to the needs of NSRDEC and
its stakeholders, (c) to facilitate mappings to the Performance Indicators, and (d) for
future use in computer programs. The characteristics of the numbering scheme are
described below.

The first set of three numbers (i.j.k) reflects a part of the map that can be organized as a
tree structure solely for the purpose of navigation. There currently are 63 behavioral-
experiential concepts classified by 21 "core processes" (i.j) and 5 high-level blocks (i) of
categories. Core processes (i.j) are a level of task specificity at which particular scientists
or particular laboratories tend to specialize. Figure 4 depicts the ontology as a periodic
table of behavioral-experiential elements that can be combined in various ways to
describe and assess more complex behavior. In this sense, while the concepts can be
visualized as a tree structure, their use is not limited to the assumptions of a strict tree
structure. Complex behavior involves concurrent and sequential nesting of elements in
this periodic table. Behavior within blocks 1 and 3 (and between these blocks) typically
are nested sequentially, and they can be assessed as such. Behavior in blocks 2, 4, and 5
typically is concurrently nested with behavior in Blocks 1 or 3, and they can be assessed
as such.

While nesting has esoteric (epistemological and ontological) significance in the
scientific community, it is a practical exigency for science that is relevant to
Soldiers. It is a reason for science that is relevant to Soldiers.


10

Figure 4. Experiential-behavioral categories (i.j.k) organized into blocks (i).
Numbers to the left of each category are ratings on a seven-point scale (1=highest).
Higher ratings indicate operational relevance together with opportunity for scientific
progress.

Numbers after the dash (l.m.n) denote particular lab tasks classified hierarchically into
groups (Figure 5). Group l is a level of classification for lab paradigms that generalizes
across many core processes (i.j.k). This group generally refers to constraints on action
that, collectively, provide a roadmap for continual development in a science of load
planning. Group m is a basic level of classification for which different paradigms or
laboratory tasks address a common construct. Group n is the level of classification that
corresponds to a particular laboratory task (e.g., particular citations). There is a dash
between i.j.k and l.m.n because, in principle, the latter generally can be applied to any of
the categories of the former (although in the present work, this elaboration has been
worked out only for running and walking). This relatively mundane nuance of the
numbering scheme can be a source of considerable transdisciplinary innovation in
operationally-relevant human movement science.

The two-part ontology (e.g., represented in Figure 5) juxtaposes a practical framework of
concepts expressed in everyday language with a more esoteric framework that reveals
linkages to powerful scientific paradigms. Group l, for example, generally refers to

11
organismic constraints (l=1, 2), environmental constraints (l=3), and task constraints (l=4,
5). The delineation of these classes of constraints on action has been a powerful source of
transdisciplinary integration in academe (Newell, 1986) and in federally-funded R&D
(Riccio, 1993/1997). Karl Newells leadership in the academic amalgam of Kinesiology
is noteworthy in this regard. He has explicated the challenges and some solutions for
transdisciplinary integration in kinesiology given that there are over one hundred
different combinations of disciplines across the various academic departments that are
represented by or at least associated with this community of practice and scholarship (see
e.g., Newell, 2007). The relevant disciplines include physics, biology, psychology,
sociology, and the humanities. The value of any organizing framework for such an
amalgam is that it helps reveal and promulgate reciprocal impact and innovation between
different disciplines. This is the intent of our behavioral-experiential ontology and the
associated periodic table.

In an academic department of kinesiology, the term biomechanics typically has a fairly
narrow connotation to distinguish scholars with more of an interest in physics from those
who bring other powerful constructs to the study of human movement. At NSRDEC,
there is no need for such internal differentiation. Of necessity, a more integrated
organization is required to transition science to the organizations that need guidance in
equipping Soldiers for enhanced mobility, lethality, and survivability. The number and
variety of scholars associated with the term biomechanics at NSRDEC is closer to the
breadth of a department of kinesiology at a major university than to a narrower
connotation limited to the physics of human movement. In the context of the present
project, the desired integration with cognitive science underscores the connection with
the history and sociology of kinesiology as a discipline of disciplines. We thus have been
using the term biomechanics in a very broad sense in our work for NSRDEC.

Our broad view of the science relevant to biomechanics has had very practical and
comprehensive implications for our work. For example, the scientific disciplines
represented in the ontology are numerous, and the organizational affiliations of authors
on the associated citations in the biomechanics library explicitly reveal this breadth
(section 4, Appendix). They include but are not limited to mechanical engineering (e.g.,
boundary conditions for systems that support conveyance and transportation), electrical
and computer engineering (e.g., robotics), aerospace engineering (e.g., adaptive control
systems), industrial engineering (e.g., occupational biomechanics and ergonomics,
manual control), bioengineering (e.g., physiological control systems, prosthetics,
orthotics), human movement science (e.g., biomechanics of posture and locomotion,
motor control, motor behavior, exercise and sport physiology, exercise and sport
psychology, exercise and sport sociology), psychology (e.g., perception and
psychophysics, psychophysiology, learning and development), health science (e.g.,
physical therapy, occupational therapy), neurology (e.g., neuropathology, neurometrics),
biology (e.g., comparative biomechanics, anatomy, physiology).

The ontology (e.g., as represented in part in Figure 5) shows how paradigmatic concepts
from one discipline can be applied to another. The particular citations in the
biomechanics library (Appendix) make these connections concrete but, in most cases, the
connections might be overlooked without the ontology. The ontology thus helps outsiders
become informed consumers of knowledge from an unfamiliar discipline of scholarship.
Moreover, it helps insiders look at their own discipline through a different lens. In both
ways, this approach to transdisciplinary integration fosters innovation (Riccio,
1993/1997).

12

Figure 5. Behavioral-experiential categories (i.j.k) differentiated into
groups (l.m). Numbers to the left of each category are ratings on a seven-
point scale (1=highest). Higher ratings indicate operational relevance
together with opportunity for scientific progress.

4 Biomechanics Library

To date, 103 categories of behavior have been identified as relevant to our discussions
and collaborative reflection about micro-experiences (Appendix). All these categories
were rated (weighted) by the investigator responsible for the biomechanics analysis
described above. Ratings were based on operational relevance and opportunity for
scientific impact. Each category was rated on a seven-point scale in which the highest
rating reflected a high degree of relevance and opportunity. Relevance was based on
discussions pertaining to the operational tasks, 72-hour scenario, and development of
performance indicators as a whole (i.e., as opposed to specific PI). Soldier load
influenced the ratings of relevance given that it was a central theme throughout the CTA
and the concurrent discussions of micro-experiences. Opportunity was based on the
feasibility of research that would advance theory or evidence beyond the current body of
relevant scientific literature. The lowest rating reflected low relevance and opportunity. It

13
should be noted, however, that this designation of lowest is relative. By their very
inclusion in the ontology, all categories of behavior are noteworthy because they emerged
in our reflection on Soldiers micro-experiences.

A middle rating indicated high on one dimension and low on the other. Thus, a middle
rating could indicate relevant research where there is little opportunity either because of a
barrier to conducting the research or because a substantial body of relevant scientific
literature already exists. Alternatively, a middle rating could reflect an opportunity for
novel research that isnt especially relevant. Brief narrative summaries (descriptions)
are provided for the relevance and opportunity of all 103 categories in the library.

Two or three citations to the relevant scientific literature are provided for over 60 of the
103 categories of behavior. All the categories rated 1 and 2, and almost all of the
categories rated 3, have citations associated with them. Some of the lower rated
categories also have citations associated with them; typically this is the case for
categories that potentially could have much greater relevance and opportunity if
combined in innovative ways with other categories. To date, citations are provided only
for complete documents that are publicly available on the web (generally linked through
Google Scholar). Citations are intended to stimulate innovation and to be somewhat
representative but not comprehensive. They are biased toward recent, replicable, peer-
reviewed research but with some important exceptions. Citations are provided for early or
classic works in which key assumptions are most likely to be explained or justified. They
also are provided for peer-reviewed research that potentially is more valuable to
NSRDEC than to the broader academic community. Citations occasionally are provided
for research having had minimal peer review if it has compelling relevance to NSRDEC.

Figure 6. Library of measures used in relevant scientific domains.


14
Behavioral-experiential categories from the biomechanics analysis were mapped into
performance indicators (PI) even though these PI were the result of a cognitive task
analysis (Figure 6). Because of the epistemological differences between cognitive science
and biomechanics highlighted in section 1, a large number of the 103 categories in the
biomechanics analysis are relevant to specific PI, and vice versa. At the same time, it is
not the case that everything is related to everything. The structure of the ontology for
biomechanics enabled us to identify a basic or middle level (i.j) that differentiated
usefully among different PI. For consistency with the cognitive mapping to PI, we refer
to this basic level as core processes. The links in the library enable one to go from PI to
behavioral-experiential categories in the biomechanics analysis or in the other direction.
The mapping is at a higher level of abstraction, of necessity, than for the cognitive tasks.
This higher level of abstraction has a qualitatively different kind of value.

Consider, for example, the PI develop a plan and the sub-PI determine route within
the context of the squad critical task of conduct reconnaissance for the planning phase
of search and attack within the 72-hour scenario. All the core processes within the
biomechanics group of move over, through, and around (i.e., 1.1 locomotion, 1.2
fording, 1.3 climbing, 1.4 jumping) potentially are relevant to this PI, and there are a
large number of laboratory tasks in biomechanics that are relevant to the PI and the
associated core processes for biomechanics. Yet, when one looks at one of the
behavioral-experiential categories (i.e., category of lab tasks), there is considerable utility
even for analyses that are not limited to biomechanics.

It would not be practical to pursue comprehensively a level of detail below the current set
of PI. Selecting a subset of PI for more detailed task analysis is the only alternative. The
behavioral-experiential detail provided by the biomechanical analysis is a good basis
from which to prioritize and do a more selective analysis because this detail includes
science that we know to be feasible and relevant. If, for example, one looks at the
particular category of lab task 1.1.1-3 of running through challenging terrain, there
can be highly detailed and productive collaboration between Soldiers and scientists that is
relevant to the squad critical task of conduct reconnaissance. The problem of conduct
reconnaissance becomes nonarbitrarily more specific because the additional specificity in
further analysis of the operational situation can be driven by knowledge of science that
can be brought to bear on the problems that subsequently would be identified in this more
specific discussion. This is what the library reveals to us. It is actionable and insightful
precisely because the mapping to PI is at a higher level of abstraction. It points the way to
more detailed analysis even on the operational side of the problem and in scientific
disciplines outside those addressed by the library.

The mere existence of the behavioral-experiential categories is a powerful
weighting and prioritization for further analysis. The explicit weightings of
these categories simply add to this value. The chance of an analytical dead end
thus is considerably reduced.

Consider the grounded dialogue that would be stimulated by subcategory 1.1.1-3-5
spatial constrained. What would one need to have reconnaissance about if running
through challenging terrain is an issue? What are the conditions under which that would
be likely to happen? Is there limited visibility because of wooded terrain and bends in the
road? Is the terrain sloped such that there are vantage points above the route of travel that
would reduce survivability? What can Soldiers see from the vantage point of their
intended route given wooded and mountainous terrain? Should Soldiers split into two

15
teams for more refined reconnaissance with near-term implications? Can autonomous
robots (e.g., SUGV, SUAV) effectively provide an alternative for such beyond-line-of-
sight reconnaissance? How closely packed are trees off the route, how thick is the
underbrush, and to what extent and with what difficulty is it traversable? How quickly
can Soldiers doff kit and what effect would this have on their mobility? How would
doffed kit influence the lethality of Soldiers? What is the impact on tactical
marksmanship if Soldiers need to jump or otherwise move abruptly to another location
and vantage point where a shoot/no-shoot decision will have to be made? All these topics
emerged in situated collaborative problem solving during our Quick Look on Mount
Monadnock. More importantly, the biomechanics library shows the productive scientific
directions one can take to address the implications of the questions above.

A different set of productive questions arises when considering different elements of the
biomechanics library such as the subcategories 1.1.1-3.2 compliant surfaces and 1.1.1-
3.3 slippery surfaces. What are the factors that influence these properties of the support
surface such as the relative amounts of sand, clay, rock, and moisture? To what extent
can multispectral sensing (e.g., sensor package on a robotic asset) provide reconnaissance
about the composition of the terrain? To what extent do the relative amounts of sand, clay,
rock, and moisture influence the stability, efficiency, and energy expenditure of running,
and to what extent is this different for walking (as addressed in subcategories under 1.1.2-
3)? To what extent does this complement a load planning tool that provides information
on energy expenditure as a function of distance and changes in elevation over different
routes as well as branching points depending on the likelihood that a particular segment
of a route has been washed out or flooded? To what extent can this information be
integrated in decisions based on use of a load planning tool or integrated into such
decision aids for route planning? These are exceedingly relevant questions with potential
impact on capability development based on science that the library tells us is available.
Thus there would be a relatively high return on an investment in further analysis of the
route planning PI based on mapping to the behavioral-experiential categories in the
biomechanics library.

The mapping between PI and biomechanics at a high level of abstraction (i.e.,
basic level of core processes) leads to scientific detail that can be exploited in
more refined analysis of operational tasks that has a higher payoff than
otherwise would be possible.

5 Toward a Transdisciplinary Science of Soldier and Squad-Level Capabilities

There are a number of features to the library that are generative. The library goes beyond
description of the relevance of science to operations and vice versa to suggest priorities
and potential directions for innovation in both science and operations. The mapping of
core and secondary processes to performance indicators, for example, came to have some
interesting attributes. Typically there are multiple processes associated with a particular
PI. As indicated above, this will be useful in directing further scientific discussion and
investigation of the squad-critical tasks and the 72-hour scenario. It provides a path to the
development of measures, based on the PI, which can provide actionable feedback to
guide continuous development of individual and squad-level capabilities.

In the context of measure development, the multiplicity of processes of relevance to
particular PI also introduces the concept of nesting. This nesting is generative insofar as it
suggests ways to integrate ostensibly incommensurate experimental paradigms to achieve

16
a balance of internal and external validity that is appropriate for evidence-based
development of Soldier systems. As an element of our framework for transdisciplinary
science, nesting is a raison dtre for research in Army Research, Development, and
Engineering Centers that is not likely to be done in the broader scientific community yet
that leverages that broader national resource.

Nesting helps bridge the gap between the broader scientific community and the
research that only Army RDECs are likely to conduct.

Consider, for example, research into tactical marksmanship that is addressed in the
category of biomechanics lab task 3.4.2 aiming as opposed to competition
marksmanship or typical marksmanship training in the Army. One of the citations in this
category (Palmer, Riccio, & van Emmerik, 2012) is a laboratory experiment in which
landing (jumping from a height of 24 inches) was combined with postural stability
(maintenance of bipedal stance) and dynamic visual acuity (maintenance of gaze on a
point of regard). The study built on a solid foundation in various independent lines of
research. While the research was motivated by the needs of NSRDEC, it is not the kind of
research that typically would be conducted in academe.

With an eye toward the needs of NSRDEC, Palmers work reveals that exceedingly
practical issues can be addressed with scientific rigor and in an academic laboratory with
the influence of NSRDEC. Practical questions go beyond how much shock is transmitted
to various parts of the body as perturbations (i.e., unintended motion and altered
mobility) and for how long after landing. They address whether the amplitude,
distribution, and duration of perturbations has consequences for tasks that must be
performed by a Soldier, such as aiming a rifle and making a shoot/no-shoot decision.
Time scales and error have meaning in such this kind of research; they are not arbitrary.
Inability to think and act in a specific time frame with a specific level of performance has
lethal consequences (for oneself or someone else). The mobility involved in postural
transitions and support of perception and nested action systems has consequences for
lethality and survivability. They are thoroughly intertwined as any experienced Soldier
knows. Moreover, the nesting of tasks in Palmers work provided new insight into the
consequences of Soldier load. In particular, asymmetry of load emerged as the most
important factor influencing performance even in elite shooters. More generally, the
reason for trandisciplinary research is to facilitate transition of science to technical,
operational, or programmatic solutions and this often has simultaneous implications for
materiel development and training (McDonald, Riccio, & Newman, 1999).

Nesting of tasks enables one to transform expedient measures of performance in one
domain or another and combine them in ways that reveal tangible outcomes. For example,
a frequency spectrum of vibration transmitted from foot to the head, combined with a
frequency spectrum of compensatory capabilities of the head-neck system or the
oculomotor system, combined with contrast reduction as a function of the frequency
spectrum of retinal slip, combined visual detection time as a function of contrast
reduction, combined the time it takes to decide to shoot or not shoot provides indications
about operational effectiveness that are concrete if not binary (life or death) but also may
have strategic implications. This is an example of what it means to analyze the Soldier as
a system (cf., Riccio, McDonald, & Bloomberg, 1999).


17
Often the esoteric units of measurement utilized in analyzing components of a
system either cancel out or combine in some way that is much simpler than the
component parts. This is common in engineering and often the point of it.

In the biomechanics section of the library as in the cognitive science section, core and
secondary processes differentiate behavioral-experiential categories that are more
relevant or more directly relevant to a particular PI from those that are less so. Secondary
processes are not unimportant or irrelevant; they are just less so than core processes. A
behavioral-experiential category (e.g., 4.3 affordances/effectivities) that is a secondary
process for one PI (e.g., develop a plan for search and attack) can be a core process for
another PI (e.g., dynamic replanning of load in establishing a traffic control point).

In the biomechanics library, it generally is the case the core and secondary processes are
nested either concurrently or sequentially. This fact is utilized in the section of the library
on biomechanical measures to draw attention to highly relevant transdisciplinary
connections. To simplify this implication in this section of the library, the rows always
specify only one core process and one associated secondary process. Typically this
association is explicitly addressed in the research that is cited in the same row. There are
many more opportunities for transdisciplinary research into the nesting of different
behavioral-experiential categories in every row of the library. These opportunities for
paradigmatic innovation are highlighted in the cross-references column for each
behavioral-experiential category and to some extent in the descriptions for each
category. Future innovations that realize this potential would be accommodated in the
library as additional rows with classification in terms of i.j.k-l.m.n. Similarly the library
can accommodate additional rows for particular laboratory tasks that are extant and
represented in the citations already in the library (e.g., at the level of i.j.k-l.m). In either
case, tasks at the level of n could be given a name (e.g., the Palmer task for tactical
marksmanship). Tasks (rows) at higher levels in the biomechanics library dont require a
name because they generally are not tasks created for scientific purposes and unique to
science. They are common tasks that Soldiers and others perform on the job or in daily
life, thus, the common words for those tasks or activities are used.

The library has been designed for extensibility so it can both stimulate and accommodate
future innovation in science for Soldiers. In the biomechanics library, we explored use of
several additional columns to suggest modifications of existing research and to do so in
some systematic way that could be applied iteratively to any task (row) in the library. The
thinking behind these exploratory columns and the extensibility they promote is
highlighted below:

"Workload/Effort/Endurance" refers to cognitive and physiological limits on
performance in complex or time-consuming tasks
"Stability" refers to the ability to maintain or persist in some set of states or
configurations
"Equilibrium" refers to a preferred set of states or configurations (i.e., an
objective)
"Flow" refers to something that persists over changes in other aspects of a
situation
"Transition" refers to essential (purposeful) change as opposed to incidental
change (e.g., perturbations)

18
Nesting refers to transformation in an ontological category (i.e., nesting
changes the fundamental unit of analysis)
Epistemological refers to transformation in an epistemological category with
invariance in ontological category (e.g., use of kinetics measures instead of
kinematics measures)
Scale refers to transformation of scale with invariance in the epistemological
category (e.g., time scale or spatial scale)
Parameterization refers to transformation in the structure of the parameter set
used for measurement with invariance in the epistemological category (e.g., 3d
instead of 2d, depth instead of breadth)
Team refers to task changes that can address team behavior or processes
instead of or in addition to the behavior of individuals
Transdisciplinary implications refers to the relevance and potential impact of
research at NSRDEC on other Army laboratories and disciplines
Materiel implications and constraints refers to the relevance and potential
impact of research at NSRDEC on Army acquisitions programs of record
Nonmateriel implications and constraints refers to the relevance and potential
impact of research at NSRDEC on Army training and education

As an example of how these dimensions of extensibility can be utilized, entries in all
these columns are provided for the following behavioral-experiential categories:

1.1.1-1.2 Elastic storage (Running)
1.1.1-2.3 Cutting (Running)
1.1.1-3.5 Spatially constrained (Running)
3.4.2 Aiming
4.4.2 Kinematics-constrained reasoning
5.2.3 Use of Sensory Accessories

We believe these dimensions of extensibility will provide useful guidance in discovering
opportunities for paradigmatic innovation in the juxtaposition of cognitive and
biomechanics laboratory tasks because of their parallel mapping to PI (Figure 6). This
parallel mapping should be viewed from the perspective of integration and reciprocal
influence (i.e., transdisciplinary science) as opposed to analogy or coincidence of interest
(Rosenfield, 1992; Stokols et al., 2003). For example, the periodic table of behavioral-
experiential elements can be a source of guidance for general experimental conditions
that reveal or promote transition. It also can be a source of independent variables or
covariates in experiments in the social and cognitive sciences. The relevance of
laboratory research in the social and cognitive sciences thus can become more salient and,
in any case, better defined with respect to this periodic table of elements that are
observable either behaviorally, experientially, or both.

Finally, an initial conclusion from our work is that embodied cognition can be a fruitful
area of transdisciplinary research at NSRDEC (e.g., Anderson, 2003; Wilson, 2002).
Embodied cognition is in a separate block of the behavioral-experimental periodic table
(4. Nested Perception or Cognition). It should be noted that this and other behavioral-
experiential elements in this block often are designated as secondary processes in the
library and only rarely as core processes. This is because, in principle, embodied
cognition can be coupled with every other element in the periodic table. It reflects the
simple fact that Soldiers are thinking beings, and they always have been even before the

19
21
st
century Soldier competencies became a high priority. What Soldiers know or believe
about themselves and their teammates influences what they do and what they plan to do.
As indicated above (section 1), self-knowledge is critical to decisions made in the
moment that can have immediate life and death consequences. Knowledge of ones own
capabilities and those of others is invaluable in planning, and the consequences are
important even though they are delayed.

In particular, there seem to be many useful connections between the research in embodied
cognition and the design and use of a load-planning tool (LPT). We believe they can
inform each other. The data and models utilized in an LPT are a small subset of the
constraints on locomotion, not to mention human movement in general, that are
addressed in the research cited in the biomechanics library. The lists of PI for Squad-
critical tasks and the 72-hour scenario indicate the relevance of the biomechanics
research and what Soldiers would do with such information about constraints on action.
The cognitive library essentially indicates the cognitive processes that Soldiers can bring
to bear on the acquisition and use of information about constraints on action in the
context of particular PI. A deeper understanding of these transdisciplinary connections
could lead to a leap ahead in the sophistication of an LPT and its use. Even if some
connections were not exploited in an LPT, they almost certainly would have relevance to
training.

The transdisciplinary library, and the mapping between Squad-level tasks and
scientific paradigms, represents knowledge that highly experienced Soldiers
should have when they have mastered their craft. Formative measures that
help assess and improve this knowledge should be a priority. In other words,
training and education must be integrated and developed with capabilities
provided by technology.

References

Anderson, M.L. (2003). Field Review Embodied Cognition: A field guide. Artificial
Intelligence, 149, 91130.

Aptima (2012, July). Report to the U.S. Army Natick Soldier Research, Development and
Engineering Center. Woburn, MA: Aptima, Inc.

Flyvberg, B. (2001). Making social science matter: Why social inquiry fails and how it
can
succeed again. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University.

Hamaoui, J. (2011, January). Colab: A model for accelerated solutions. Paper presented
at the NHHPC Workshop on Collaborative Innovation: Strategies and Best Practices.
Houston, TX: NASA Human Health and Performance Center.
http://www.nasa.gov/offices/NHHPC/media/201101-NHHPC-Workshop-Hamaoui.html

Msse, L. C., Moser, R. P., Stokols, D., Taylor, B. K., Marcus, S. E., Morgan, G. D., Hall,
K.L., Croyle, R.T., Trochim, W. (2008). Measuring Collaboration and Transdisciplinary
Integration in Team Science. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35(2,
Supplement 1), S151-S160.


20
McDonald, P.V., Riccio, G.E., & Newman, D. (1999). Understanding skill in EVA mass
handling: Part IV: An integrated methodology for evaluating space suit mobility and
stability. NASA Technical Paper 3684. Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center, Houston TX.

Newell, K. (2007). Kinesiology: challenges of multiple agendas. Quest, 59, 5-24.

Palmer, C.J., Riccio, G.E., & van Emmerik, R.E.A. (2012). Orienting under load:
Intrinsic dynamics and postural affordances for visual perception. Ecological Psychology,
24(2), 95-121.

Quinlan, K. M., Kane, M., & Trochim, W. M. K. (2008). Evaluation of large research
initiatives: Outcomes, challenges, and methodological considerations. In C. L. S. Coryn
& M. Scriven (Eds.), Reforming the evaluation of research: New directions for
evaluation, 118, 6172.

Riccio, G. (1993/1997). Multimodal perception and multicriterion control of nested
systems: Self motion in real and virtual environments. (UIUC-BIHPP-93-02).
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: Beckman Institute for Advanced Science &
Technology (Part I reprinted in Riccio & McDonald, 1997, NASA Technical Paper series
3703).

Riccio, G., Diedrich, F., & Cortes, M. (Eds.). An Initiative in Outcomes-Based Training
and Education: Implications for an Integrated Approach to Values-Based Requirements
(Chapter 3). Fort Meade, MD: U.S. Army Asymmetric Warfare Group.

Riccio, G., & McDonald, P. & Bloomberg, J. (1999). Multimodal perception and
multicriterion control of nested systems: III. A functional visual assessment test for
human health maintenance and countermeasures, NASA/TP-1999-3703c, Johnson Space
Center, Houston, TX.

Rosenfield, P. L. (1992). The potential of transdisciplinary research for sustaining and
extending linkages between the health and social sciences. Social Science and Medicine,
35, 13431357.

Stokols, D., Fuqua, J., Gress, J., Harvey, R., Phillips, K., Baezconde-Garbanati, L., et al.
(2003). Evaluating transdisciplinary science. Nicotine and Tobacco Research, 5, S-1,
S21S39.

Trochim. W., Marcus, S.E., Msse, L.C., Moser, R.P., Weld, P. (2008). The evaluation of
large research initiatives: A participatory integrative mixed-methods approach, American
Journal of Evaluation, 29, 1, 8-28.

Wenger, Etienne (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Wilson, M. (2002). Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,
9(4), 625-636.

Core Biomechanical
Processes
Secondary Biomechanical
Processes
Specific Component of
Construct Measured
Detailed Description (Lab Task and Materials)
Citation (Containing Task Explanation)
1. Move over, through, around
1.1 Locomotion
1.1-1 Movement in General Individual Movement
Techniques and Specific
Military Maneuvers
Operationally, the section in HQDA (2008) on "Individual Movement Techniques"
is most relevant to identification of critical biomechanical issues. With rapid
developments in instrumentation, obstacle courses are potentially a viable,
reliable, and replicable test bed for "research in the wild."
Technically, if we are to take "Soldier as a System" seriously and specifically in
terms of a dynamical system, it behooves us to consider and adapt the broadest
range of mature transdisciplinary research on human perception and control of
dynamical systems (e.g., Riccio, 1993/1997). The implications of such research
for systems design and training will be a rich source of innovation that can
accommodate quantitative and qualitative verification and validation of
assessment methods as well as materiel and nonmateriel capabilities [e.g.,
1.1.1-2 Natural Variations].
HQDA (2008). Movement. In: FM 3-21.75: The Warrior Ethos and Soldier Combat Skills (Chapter 7). Washington DC:
HQDA.
Frykman, P.N., Harman, E.A., & Pandorf, C.E. (2000). Correlates of obstacle course performance among female soldiers
carrying two different loads. DTIC ADP010994. Natick, MA: U.S. Army Research Institute of Environmental Medicine.
LaFiandra, M., Lynch, S., Frykman, P., Everett Harman, E., Ramos, H., & Mello, R. (2003). A comparison of two
commercial off the shelf backpacks to the Modular Lightweight Load Carrying Equipment (MOLLE) in biomechanics,
metabolic cost and performance. T03-15. Natick, MA: U.S. Army Research Institute of Environmental Medicine.
Riccio, G. (1993/1997). Multimodal perception and multicriterion control of nested systems: Self motion in real and
virtual environments. (UIUC-BIHPP-93-02). University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: Beckman Institute for
Advanced Science & Technology (reprinted in Riccio & McDonald, 1997, NASA Technical Paper series 3703).
1.1-2 Support Surface
Dynamics
4.3.1 Perceive
Objects/Surroundings
Rheology and Terramechanics Perception and control of movement cannot be understood, in principle, without
considering interaction between the moving system and the substrate on which
it moves. Classic references are:
* Scott Blair, G.W. (1944). A survey of general and applied rheology. New York:
Pitman.
* Bekker, M.G. (1956). Theory of land locomotion: The mechanics of vehicle
mobility. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
* Muro, T., & O'Brien, J. (1984). Terramechanics: Land locomotion mechanics.
Lisse, NL: Swets & Zeitlinger.
* Nigg, B.M. (1986). Biomechanics of running shoes. Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics.
Stoffregen, T.A., & Riccio, G.E. (1988). An ecological theory of orientation and the vestibular system. Psychological
Review, 95(1), 3-14.
Ding, Y., Gravis, N., Li, C., Maladen, R.D., Mazouchova, N., Sharpe, S.S., Umbahnowar, P.B., & Goldman, D.I. (2012).
Comparative studies reveal principles of movement on and within granular media. In: S. Childress, Hosoi, A., Schults,
W.W., & Wang, Z. (Eds.) !Natural Locomotion in Fluids and on Surfaces: Swimming, Flying, and Sliding" (Volume 155 of
the IMA Volumes in Mathematics and its Applications). Springer.
1.1.1 Running
1.1.1-1 General Properties 1.1.2 Walking Running typically is assessed in the laboratory using constant velocity treadmill
locomotion. Overground locomotion requires different kinds of instrumentation
and analyses, and these methodological capabilities are undergoing rapid
scientific and technical innovation. "Fighting load" is more relevant than
"approach load" [1.1-1 Movement in General] to assessment of "running" in
Soldiers, although approach loads may lead to utilization of elastic-kinetic
energy exchanges characteristic of running at lower speeds and without a flight
phase [1.1.1-1.2 Elastic Storage].
1.1.1-1.1 Transmissibility 2.4.1 Self-Generated Reactive
Force
Energy exchange Shock absorption is an important aspect of whole-body dynamics (e.g.,
musculoskeletal system and soft tissue) for a variety of reasons including injury
and fatigue, energy exchange, and stability of the platform for the visual
system (i.e., the head).
Vorbitsky, O., Mizrahi, J., Voloshin, A., Treiger, J., & Eli lsakov, E. (1998). Shock Transmission and Fatigue
in Human Running. Journal of Applied Biomechanics, 14, 300-311.
Challis, J.H. & Pain, M.T.G. (2008). Soft tissue motion influences skeletal loads during impacts. Exercise and Sport
Sciences Reviews, 36, 71-75
1.1.1-1.2 Elastic storage 2.4.1 Self-Generated Reactive
Force
Energy exchange The best distinction between walking and running is elastic vs. gravitational
potential energy exchanges with kinetic energy of (generally forward) motion.
Comparative biomechanics reveals that a flight phase is an incidental feature of
gaits utilizing elastic energy storage. Together with computer modeling,
comparative biomechanics shows that altered morphology and body dynamics
can lead to a wider variety of stable gait patterns than just walking and
running.
Cavagna, G.A., & Kaneko (1977). Mechanical work and energy in level walking and running. Journal of Physiology, 268,
467-481.
Biknevicius, A. R., & Reilly, S.M. (2006). Correlation of symmetrical gaits and whole body mechanics: Debunking myths
in locomotor biodynamics. Journal of Experimental Zoology, 305A, 923-934.
Srinivasan, M. & Andy Ruina, A. (2006). Computer optimization of a minimal biped model discovers walking and
running. Nature, 439(5), 72-75.
1.1.1-1.3 Pulmonary
Ventilation
5.1.2 Coordinated Breathing Coordination Coordination between the overlapping musculoskeletal systems involved in
respiration and locomotion is a skill, however mundane, that can improve with
targeted training especially in unusual conditions. This is an everyday skill that
takes on relatively greater importance when expansion of the thoracic cavity is
constrained.
McDermott, W.J., Van Emmerik, R.E.A. Hamill, J. (2003). Running training and adaptive strategies of locomotor-
respiratory coordination. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 89, 435-444.
Bernasconi, P. & Kohl, J. (1993). Analysis of co-ordination between breathing and exercise rhythms in man. Journal of
Physiology, 471, 693-706.
1.1.1-1.4 Sprint/Rush 2.4.1 Energy Absorption Speed In high-speed travel under load, a key consideration is the forces on the
musculoskeletal system upon footfall. Physical fitness enables higher-speed
locomotion (rush). It is an empirical question whether fitness, and what kind,
leads to more effective (coordinated) energy absorption and transfer.
Blount, E.M., Tolk, A., & Ringleb, S.I. (2010, April). Physical Fitness for Tactical Success. Paper presented at the VMASC
Student Capstone Conference; Virginia Modeling, Analysis and Simulation Center, Old Dominion University, Suffolk, VA.
Chumanov, E.S., Heiderscheit, B.C., & Thelen, D.G. (2011). Hamstring musculotendon dynamics during stance and
swing phases of high speed running. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 43(3), 525532.
1.1.1-1.5 Endurance 1.1.2-1.5 Endurance Energy exchange Injury biomechanics is an important source of information pertaining to
endurance. Comparative biomechanics also can be insightful to the extent that
excessive weight and bulk essentially turns the human into a different species
biomechanically.
Hoskins, W. (2012). Low back pain and injury in athletes. In: Y. Sakai (Ed.), Low back pain pathogenesis and treatment
(pp. 41-68). Rijeka, Croatia: InTech.
Bramble, D.M. & Lieberman, D.E (2004). Endurance running and the evolution of Homo. Nature, 432(18), 345-352.
1.1.1-1.6 Spatiotemporal
range
4.3.1 Perceive Surroundings Traversability Research on orienteering, obstacle courses, and combined athletic events are a
good source for guidance on how to conceptualize and measure this capability.
Mullins, N. (2012). Obstacle course challenges: History, popularity, performance demands, effective training, and
course design. Journal of Exercise Physiology, 15(2), 100-128.
Alonso, J.-M., Edouard, P., Fischetto, G., Adams, B., Depiesse, F., & Mountjoy, M. (2012). Determination of future
prevention strategies in elite track and field: analysis of Daegu 2011 IAAF Championships injuries and illnesses
surveillance. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 46, 505514.
1.1.1-2 Natural Variations 1.1-2 Support Surface
Dynamics
Consider developing a methodology analogous to the Cooper-Harper rating
scale that is used to assess the "handling qualities" of vehicles. Assess handling
qualities for a particular behavioral-experiential category ("biomechanical
process) at least at the three-number level [e.g., 1.1.1 running vice 1.1.2
walking] under a small set of well-specified conditions and maneuvers that can
be characterized and verified quantitatively [e.g., 1.1-1 Movement in General].
This would allow for specification of a performance envelope for each
biomechanical process.
Cooper, G.E., & Harper, R.P. (1969). The use of pilot rating in the evaluation of aircraft handling qualities. AGARD-NATO
Report 567. Neuilly-sur-Seine Cedex, France: Advisory Group for Aerospace Research and Development.
Research and Technology Organisation North Atlantic Treaty Organization (2002). Collaboration for land, air, sea, and
space vehicles: Developing the common ground in vehicle dynamics, system identification, control, and handling
qualities. France: Research and Technology Organization North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.
1.1.1-2.1 Acceleration 1.1.2 Walking Acceleration The most important considerations for changes in speed are gait transitions
between running and walking because they are intimately linked to energy
expenditure, stability, and effectivities (e.g., terrain that can be traversed with
one gait pattern or another).
Segers, V, Lenoir, M., Aerts P., De Clercq, D. (2007). Influence of M. tibialis anterior fatigue on the walk-to-run and run-
to-walk transition in non-steady state locomotion, Gait Posture, 25(4), 639-647.
Sasaki, K. & Neptune, R.R. (2006). Muscle mechanical work and elastic energy utilization during walking and running
near the preferred gait transition speed. Gait & Posture, 23, 383390.
1.1.1-2.2 Braking (stopping) 2.2.1 Upright Stance Braking Beyond the critical issues pertaining to rheological characteristics of the foot-
ground interface, that also are common in turning, the most important issues in
braking pertain to perception and control of time to contact with an object or
milestone in the surroundings and establishing stable postural control for the
next activity in the sequence.
Lee, D.N. (1980). The optical flow field: The foundation of vision. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of
London B, 290 (1038), 169-178.
Fajen, B.R. (2005). Calibration, information, and control strategies for braking to avoid a collision. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31(3), 480501.
1.1.1-2.3 Cutting 2.2.2 Leaning Cutting Because of technological limitations of the laboratory, historically, almost all
studies of human locomotion have involved motion in a straight line. Changes in
direction are ubiquitous, however, in natural environments and the activities of
daily living as well as in occupational and recreational activities. Changes in
direction reveal the sophisticated control required to coordinate balance with
propulsion, the critical importance of foot morphology and shoe design, and the
requirement to consider support-surface characteristics in an externally valid
analysis of locomotion.
Kuntze, G., Sellers, W.I, & Mansfield, N.J. (2009). Bilateral ground reaction forces and joint moments for lateral
sidestepping and crossover stepping tasks. Journal of Sports Science and Medicine, 8, 1-8.
Wannop, J.W., Worobets, J.T. and Stefanyshyn, D.J. (2010) Footwear traction and lower extremity joint loading.
American Journal of Sport Medicine, Vol. 38(6), 1221-1228.
1.1.1-3 Challenging Terrain
1.1.1-3.1 Inclined/Declined
surfaces
4.1.2 Feet (Haptics) Traversability Uphill locomotion is qualitatively different from locomotion on level ground
because a significant percentage of gravitational potential energy (e.g., in load
carried) is not returned for immediate use as translational kinetic energy.
Gravitational potential cannot be utilized extensively during downhill locomotion
because of limits on eccentric muscle loading, elastic energy storage, and
viscoelastic dissipation of energy.
Gottschall, J.S., & Kram, R. (2005).Ground reaction forces during downhill and uphill running. Journal of Biomechanics,
38, 445452.
Mizrahi, J., Verbitsky, O., & Isakov, E. (2001). Fatigue-induced changes in decline running. Clinical Biomechanics, 16,
207-212.
1.1.1-3.2 Compliant surfaces 4.1.2 Feet (Haptics) Traversability Consider the body-surface system as a fundamental unit of analysis. Analyze
body and surface in commensurable terms enabling relational constructs such
as impedance matching.
Ferris, D.P., Louie, M., & Farley, C.T. (1998). Running in the real world: adjusting leg stiffness for different surfaces.
Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 265, 989-994.
McMahon, T.A. & Greene, P.R. (1979). The influence of track compliance on running. Journal of Biomechanics, 12, pp.
893-904.
1.1.1-3.3 Slippery surfaces 4.1.2 Feet (Haptics) Traversability The physical sciences associated with soil mechanics (e.g. rheology, tribology)
are a valuable partner in the study of locomotion outside the laboratory.
Robotics also can provide a valuable test bed for modeling and analysis of
constraints and characteristics of locomotion on surfaces outside the laboratory.
Guisasola, I., James, L., Llewellyn, C., Bartlett, M., Stiles, V., & Dixon S. (2009). Human-surface interactions: an
integrated study. International Turfgrass Society Research Journal, 11, 1097-1106.
Qian, F., Zhang, T., Li, C., et al. (2012, July). Walking and running on yielding and fluidizing ground. Paper presented at
2012 Robotics: Systems and Science. University of Sydney, Sydney NSW Australia. Retrieved from
http://www.roboticsproceedings.org/rss08/index.html
Appendix. Biomechanics Library
A-1
1.1.1-3.4 Uneven surfaces 4.1.2 Feet (Haptics) Traversability For large discontinuities that require striding, there may be insights from the
extensive body of research on end-point control although there are important
nuances in the requirements for controlling the direction of the thrust vector
upon contact. For small discontinuities, stability of the ankle joint will be
relatively important and haptic sensitivity will be important on correspondingly
shorter time scales.
Daley, M.A., & Usherwood, J.R. (2010). Two explanations for the compliant running paradox: reduced work of bouncing
viscera and increased stability in uneven terrain. Biological Letters, 6, 418-421.
van der Krogt, M.A., de Graaf, W.W., Farley, C.T., Moritz, C.T., Casius, L.J.R., & and Maarten F. Bobbert, M.F. (2009).
Robust passive dynamics of the musculoskeletal system compensate for unexpected surface changes during human
hopping. Journal of Applied Physiology, 107, 801808.
Hodgins, J.K., & Raibert, M.H. (1991). Adjusting Step Length for Rough Terrain Locomotion. IEEE Transactions on 1.1.1-3.5 Spatially
constrained
1.1.1-4.2 Torso perturbations Traversability "Four dimensional" (4d) terrain considers apertures (e.g., windows, doors,
partial enclosures), passageways (e.g., paths, hallways), obstacles (e.g.,
furniture, clutter, vegetation, outcroppings), and barriers (e.g., walls,
fortifications) as constraints on traversability that alter the manner and speed
with which a space can be traversed. 4d terrain brings time into the three
cardinal dimensions of space but as an outcome rather than as a causal variable
(e.g., as is typically the case in physics). The layout of a building interior, for
example, has a significant impact on entering and clearing a room. There is a
dearth of research in this area but a growing body of related research on semi-
autonomous robots, teleoperation, games, as well as human navigation and
spatial perception.
Roy, T.C., Springer, B.A., McNulty, V., Butler, N.L. (2010). Physical fitness. Military Medicine, 175(8), 14-96.
Maguire, E.A., Neil Burgess, N., James G. Donnett, J.G., Frackowiak, R.S.J., Frith, C.D., OKeefe, J. (1998). Knowing
where and getting there: A human navigation network. Science, 280, 921-924.
Takayama, L., Marder-Eppstein, E., Harris, H., & Beer, J. M. (2011). Assisted driving of a mobile remote presence
system: System design and controlled user evaluation. Proceedings of International Conference on Robotics and
Automation. 1883-1889.
1.1.1-4 Disturbance
Regulation
4.3.2 Perceive Self Stability An extensive body of work on human control of physical systems can provide a
source of innovation and insight in the study of human control of pedal
locomotion. The relatively rapidly increasing body of literature on nonlinear
control should be considered as well as work in linear and quasi-linear control.
Ghigliazza, R.M., Altendorfer, R., Holmes, P., Koditschek, D. (2005). A Simply Stabilized Running Model. SIAM Review,
47(3), 519549.
1.1.1-4.1 Leg/foot
perturbations
2.2.1 Upright Stance Stability Perturbations can be relatively sustained changes in dynamics such as running
through thick brush or water, or with exoskeletons or other loads on the legs.
Perturbations also can be momentary disturbances such as a tripping hazard.
Haudum, A., Birklbauer, J., Krll, J., & Mller, E. (2012). Constraint-led changes in internal variability in running. Journal
of Sports Science and Medicine, 11, 8-15.
Seay, J.F., Haddad, J.M., van Emmerik, R.E.A.,& Hamill, J, (2006). Coordination Variability Around the Walk to Run
Transition During Human Locomotion. Motor Control, 10, 178196.
1.1.1-4.2 Torso perturbations 2.2.1 Upright Stance Stability Perturbations can be relatively sustained changes in dynamics such as running
through thick brush, or with exoskeletons, or other loads on the torso or limbs.
Perturbations also can be momentary disturbances such as a shift in load or
asymmetrical load that creates cross-coupling forces due to the moment-of-
inertia tensor and potentially destabilizing coriolis motions at the head, although
research is needed in this area.
Pontzer, H., Holloway, J.H., Raichlen, D.A., & Lieberman, D.E. (2009). Control and function of arm swing in human
walking and running. The Journal of Experimental Biology 212, 523-534.
Willems, P.A., Cavagna, G.A., & Heglund, N.C. (1995). External, internal, and total work in human locomotion. The
Journal of Experimental Biology, 198, 379393.
1.1.1-4.3 Optical
perturbations
2.2.1 Upright Stance Stability Optical information (e.g., flow fields) play an important role in the control of
locomotion but it is not sufficient. Intermodal invariants are required to
disambiguate different causes of motion and to coordinate the multiple degrees
of freedom involved in the control of human movement (multi-input/multi-
output or MIMO control). Proprioceptive systems are utilized along with visual
and vestibular systems to pick up information in intermodal invariants.
Warren, W.H. (1998). Perception of heading is a brain in the neck. Nature: Neuroscience, 1(8), 647-649.
1.1.1-5 Target Following 4.3.1 Perceive
Tracking An extensive body of work on human control of physical systems can provide a
source of innovation and insight in the study of human control of pedal
locomotion. There is a principled and utilitarian distinction between target
following and disturbance regulation in this literature.
Baron, S. (1979). A brief overview of the theory and application of the optimal control model of the human operator.
Unpublished manuscript. Cambridge, MA: Bolt, Beranek, & Newman.
Jex, H.R., Magdaleno, R.E., Jewell. W.F., Junker, A., & McMillan, G. (1981). Effects of target tracking motion simulator
drive-logic filters. AFAMRL-TR-80-134. WPAFB, OH: Air Force Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory.
1.1.1-5.1 Target acquisition 5.4.1 Approach Target acquisition/interception Trajectories of interception assume or otherwise are constrained by the
dynamics of locomotor systems which include the support surface dynamics and
layout as well as the body and any carried load.
Warren, W.H., & Fajen, B.R. (2007). Behavioral dynamics of intercepting a moving target. Experimental Brain Research,
180, 303319.
Shaffer, D.M., & Gregory, T.B. (2009). How football flayers determine where to run to tackle other players: A
mathematical and psychological description and analysis. The Open Sports Sciences Journal, 2, 29-36.
1.1.1-5.2 Unit cohesion 5.4.3 Maintain Distance Relative object motion Interpersonal coordination dynamics is a relative new area of research.
Research on team sports is useful source of innovation for studying unit
cohesion especially through a dynamical systems approach in which there is the
promise of commensurability in modeling the constraints of load and its effects
on human movement.
Passos, P., Arajo, D., Keith Davids, K., Gouveia, L., Serpa, S. (2006). Interpersonal dynamics in sport: The role of
artificial neural networks and 3-D analysis. Behavior Research Methods, 38(4), 683-691.
Davids, K., Button, C., Arajo, D., Renshaw, I., & Hristovski, R. (2006). Movement Models from Sports Provide
Representative Task Constraints for Studying Adaptive Behavior in Human Movement Systems. Adaptive Behavior,
14(1), 7395.
1.1.1-5.3 Dynamic visual
acuity
4.1.2 Eye movements Dynamic visual acuity Perturbations to the head during locomotion present a challenge to the visual
system. Imperfect compensation for such perturbations by the oculomotor and
head-neck system lead to blur of the retinal image that in many ways is like
blur due to optical imperfections in the lens of the eye. Dynamic visual acuity
thus can be assessed with optometric methods analogous to those used in
conventional eye examinations. Modifications to such methods can be designed
to address uniquely biomechanical patterns of blur such as asymmetry.
Riccio, G., & McDonald, P. & Bloomberg, J. (1999). Multimodal Perception and Multicriterion Control of Nested Systems:
III. A Functional Visual Assessment Test for Human Health Maintenance and Countermeasures, NASA/TP-1999-3703c,
Johnson Space Center, Houston, TX.
Joseph L. Demer, J. & Firooz Amjadi, F. (1993). Dynamic visual acuity of normal subjects during vertical optotype and
head motion. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science, 34(6), 1894-1906.
1.1.2 Walking
1.1.2-1 General Properties 1.1.1 Running Walking typically is assessed in the laboratory using constant velocity treadmill
locomotion. For the limiting case of constant velocity, treadmill locomotion and
overground locomotion generally are considered to be mechanically equivalent
(the classic reference is van Ingen Schenau, G. J. [1980]). BIO-mechanically,
there still are differences insofar as velocity, for all practical purposes, is never
constant over all (nested) time scales involved in neuromuscular control.
Overground locomotion requires different kinds of instrumentation and
analyses, and these methodological capabilities are undergoing rapid scientific
and technical innovation. "Approach load" is more relevant than "fighting load"
[1.1-1 Movement in General] to assessment of "walking" in Soldiers, although
approach loads may lead to utilization of elastic-kinetic energy exchanges
characteristic of running at lower speeds and without a flight phase [1.1.1-1.2
Elastic Storage].
Dingwell, J.B., Cusumano, J.P., Cavanagh, P.R., & Sternad, D. (2001). Local dynamic stability versus kinematic
variability of continuous overground and treadmill walking. Journal of Biomechanical Engineering, 123, 27-32.
van Ingen Schenau, G. J. [1980]. Some fundamental aspects of the biomechanics of overground versus treadmill
locomotion. Med. Sci. Sports Exercise,12, 257261
1.1.2-1.1 Transmissibility 2.4.1 Self-Generated Reactive
Force
Energy exchange Transmission of shock due to footfall is of most important in walking when large
distances must be covered (see 1.1.2-1.6). The repetitive strain can cause
localized muscular fatigue that may not be correlated strongly with subjective
experience of fatigue, and this should suggest caution in developing and
utilizing measures of fatigue. In warm weather, there potentially is an additional
complication of heat stress due to energy dissipated in soft tissues.
Gordon, K.E., Ferris, D.P., Kuo, A.D. (2009). Metabolic and mechanical energy costs of reducing vertical
center of mass movement during gait. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 90, 136-144.
Wakelinga, J.M., Liphardta, A.-M., Nigg, B.M. (2003). Muscle activity reduces soft-tissue resonance at
heel-strike during walking. Journal of Biomechanics 36, 17611769.
Johnson, G.R. (1988).The effectiveness of shock-absorbing insoles during normal walking Prosthetics and Orthotics
International, 12, 91-95.
1.1.2-1.2 Pendular storage 2.2.2 Leaning Energy exchange The best distinction between walking and running is elastic vs. gravitational
potential energy exchanges with kinetic energy of (generally forward) motion.
Walking with significant loads may involve increase use of elastic storage or
otherwise may be more similar dynamically to running.
Cavagna, G.A., Thys, H., & Zamboni, A. (1976). The sources of external work in level walking and running. Journal of
Physiology, 262, 639-657.
Alexander, R.M. (1996). Walking and Running. The Mathematical Gazette, 80 (488), 262-266.
1.1.2-1.3 Pulmonary
Ventilation
5.1.2 Coordinated Breathing Coordination Coordination between the overlapping musculoskeletal systems involved in
respiration and locomotion is a skill, however mundane, that can improve with
targeted training especially in unusual conditions. This is an everyday skill that
takes on relatively greater importance when expansion of the thoracic cavity is
constrained [see 1.1.1-1.3].
1.1.2-1.4 Double-time march 1.1.1 Running Speed In high-speed travel under load, a key consideration is the forces on the
musculoskeletal system upon footfall. Physical fitness enables higher-speed
locomotion (rush). It is an empirical question whether fitness, and what kind,
leads to more effective (coordinated) energy absorption and transfer [see 1.1.1-
1.4].
1.1.2-1.5 Route-step march 4.3.2 Perceive Self/Other Energy exchange Injury biomechanics is an important source of information pertaining to
endurance. Comparative biomechanics also can be insightful to the extent that
excessive weight and bulk essentially turns the human into a different species
biomechanically [see 1.1.1-1.5].
1.1.2-1.6 Spatiotemporal
range
4.3.1 Perceive Surroundings Traversability Comparative and evolutionary biology are a potential source of insight and an
outside perspective on this ostensibly well understood capability of Soldiers. It
could be especially useful in the design of exoskeletons that, in essence, would
fundamentally change the biomechanics and stability properties of the human
body [see 1.1.1-1.6].
Bailey, G.N., Reynolds, S.C., & King, G.C. (2011). Landscapes of human evolution: models and methods of tectonic
geomorphology and the reconstruction of hominin landscapes. Journal of Human Evolution, 60(3), 257-80.
Crompton, R.H., Li Yu, L., Weijie, W., Gnthe, M., & Savage, R. (1998). The mechanical effectiveness of erect and
bent-hip, bent-knee bipedal walking in Australopithecus afarensis. Journal of Human Evolution, 35, 5574.
1.1.2-2 Natural Variations
1.1.2-2.1 Acceleration 1.1.1 Running Acceleration The most important considerations for changes in speed are gait transitions
between running and walking because they are intimately linked to energy
expenditure, stability, and effectivities (e.g., terrain that can be traversed with
one gait pattern or another) [see also 1.1.1-2.1].
Seay, J.F., Haddad, J.M., van Emmerik, R.E.A., & Hamill, J. (2006). Coordination variability around the walk to run
transition during human locomotion. Motor Control, 10, 178196.
Beaupied, H., Multon, F., & Delamarche, P. (2003). Does training have consequences for the walkrun transition speed?
Human Movement Science, 22, 112.
Diedrich, F.J., & Warren, W.H. (1995). Why change gaits? Dynamics of the walk-run transition. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21(1), 183-202
1.1.2-2.2 Braking (Jerk) 2.2.1 Upright Stance Braking Beyond the critical issues pertaining to rheological characteristics of the foot-
ground interface, that also are common in turning, the most important issues in
braking pertain to perception and control of time to contact with an object or
milestone in the surroundings and establishing stable postural control for the
next activity in the sequence [see also 1.1.1-2.2].
1.1.2-2.3 Turning 2.2.2 Leaning Turning Because of technological limitations of the laboratory, historically, almost all
studies of human locomotion have involved motion in a straight line. Changes in
direction are ubiquitous, however, in natural environments and the activities of
daily living as well as in occupational and recreational activities. Changes in
direction reveal the sophisticated control required to coordinate balance with
propulsion, the critical importance of foot morphology and shoe design, and the
requirement to consider support-surface characteristics in an externally valid
analysis of locomotion [see also 1.1.1-2.3].
Imai, T., Moore, S.T., Raphan, T., & Cohen, B. (2001). Interaction of the body, head, and eyes during walking and
turning. Experimental Brain Research, 136, 118.
A-2
1.1.2-3.1 Inclined/Declined
surfaces
4.1.2 Feet (Haptics) Traversability Uphill locomotion is qualitatively different from locomotion on level ground
because a significant percentage of gravitational potential energy (e.g., in load
carried) is not returned for immediate use as translational kinetic energy.
Gravitational potential cannot be utilized extensively during downhill locomotion
because of limits on eccentric muscle loading, elastic energy storage, and
viscoelastic dissipation of energy [see also 1.1.1-2.3].
Minetti, A.E., Ardigo, L.P., & Saibene, F. (1993). Mechanical determinants of gradient walking energetics in man. Journal
of Physiology, 471, 725-735.
Silverman, A.K., Wilken, J.M., Sinitski, E.H., & Neptune, E.R. (2012). Whole body angular momentum in incline and
decline walking. Journal of Biomechanics, doi:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2012.01.012.
Franz, J.R., & Kram, R. (2011). The effects of grade and speed on leg muscle activations during walking, Gait &
Posture, doi:10.1016/j.gaitpost.2011.08.025
1.1.2-3.2 Compliant surfaces 4.1.2 Feet (Haptics) Traversability Compliant surfaces are the paradigm case for the centrality of "intermodal
invariants" in the multimodal perception of support surface dynamics (stress-
strain relations) as well as the multimodal perception of orientation and multi-
degree-of-freedom control of posture and locomotion. Anything that
compromises muscle, joint, and skin senses will make these invariants relatively
less accessible.
Unlike running on compliant surfaces where impedance matching can lead to
significant increases in efficiency of energy exchanges (see 1.1.1-3.2), it is not
clear whether nominal walking can adapt for such benefit (see 1.1.1-1.2 and
1.1.2-1.2) although shock absorption may be advantageous (see 1.1.2-1.1).
Chang, M.D., Sejdic, E., Wright, V., Chau, T. (2010). Measures of dynamic stability: Detecting differences between
walking overground and on a compliant surface. Human Movement Science, 29, 977986.
Roller, C.A., Cohen, H.S., Bloomberg, J.J., & Mulavara, A.P. (2009). Improvement of obstacle avoidance on a compliant
surface during transfer to a novel visual task after variable practice under unusual visual conditions. Perceptual and
Motor Skills, 108(1), 173.
Stoffregen, T.A., & Riccio, G.E. (1988). An ecological theory of orientation and the vestibular system. Psychological
Review, 95(1), 3-14.
1.1.2-3.3 Slippery surfaces 4.1.2 Feet (Haptics) Traversability There is a large body of data on slippery surfaces in the commercial sector, such
as collected and summarized by insurance providers and on the basis of which
loss prevention strategies are developed and implemented. Most of the research
involves post hoc epidemiological analyses and accident reconstruction.
Nevertheless, it arguably is the most mature body of research on locomotion in
terms of trans disciplinary collaboration between biomechanics and support-
surface physics (e.g., tribology).
Clark, A.J., & Higham, T.E. (2011). Slipping, sliding and stability: locomotor strategies for overcoming low-friction
surfaces. The Journal of Experimental Biology 214, 1369-1378.
Cappellini, G., Ivanenko, Y.P., Dominici, N., Poppele, R.E., & Lacquaniti, F. (2010). Motor patterns during walking on a
slippery walkway. Journal of Neurophysiology, 103, 746760.
Kim, J. (2012). Comparison of Three Different Slip Meters under Various Contaminated Conditions. Safety and Health at
Work, 3, 22-30.
1.1.2-3.4 Uneven surfaces 4.1.2 Feet (Haptics) Traversability Experimental research on human walking in precarious conditions is rare
presumably because of safety issues with human subjects. Virtual reality is
emerging as a safe testbed for research on this important ability. Robotics
research also has been a good source of theory and models for walking on
nonideal surfaces.
McAndrew, P.M., Dingwell, J.B., & Wilken, J.M. (2010). Walking variability during continuous pseudorandom oscillations
of the support surface and visual field. Journal of Biomechanics, 43(8), 14701475.
Manchester, I.R., Mettin, U., Iida, F., & Tedrake, R. (2011). Stable dynamic walking over uneven terrain. The
International Journal of Robotics Research, 30(3), 265-279.
1.1.2-3.5 Spatially
constrained
2.2.1 Upright Stance Traversability "Four dimensional" (4d) terrain considers apertures (e.g., windows, doors,
partial enclosures), passageways (e.g., paths, hallways), obstacles (e.g.,
furniture, clutter, vegetation, outcroppings), and barriers (e.g., walls,
fortifications) as constraints on traversability that alter the manner and speed
with which a space can be traversed. 4d terrain brings time into the three
cardinal dimensions of space but as an outcome rather than as a causal variable
(e.g., as is typically the case in physics). The layout of a heavily wooded
environment, for example, has a significant impact on time to reach one's
destination. More generally, cluttered environments create challenges to
dynamic balance.
Arechavaleta, G., Laumond, J.P., Hicheur, H., & Berthoz, A. (2008). An optimality principle governing human walking.
IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 24(1), 5-14.
Huxham, F.E., Goldie, P.A., & Patla, A.E. (2001): Theoretical considerations in balance assessment. Australian Journal of
Physiotherapy 47: 89-100.
1.1.2-4 Disturbance
Regulation
An extensive body of work of human control of physical systems can provide a
source of innovation and insight in the study of human control of locomotion.
The relatively rapidly increasing body of literature on nonlinear control should
be considered as well as work in linear and quasi-linear control.
Stergiou, N., & Decker, L. M. (2011). Human movement variability, nonlinear dynamics,
and pathology: Is there a connection? Human Movement Science, doi:10.1016/j.humov.2011.06.002
1.1.2-4.1 Leg/foot
perturbations
2.2.1 Upright Stance Stability Perturbations can be relatively sustained changes in dynamics such as walking
through thick brush or water, or with exoskeletons or other loads on the legs.
Perturbations also can be momentary disturbances such as a tripping hazard.
1.1.2-4.2 Torso perturbations 2.2.1 Upright Stance Stability Perturbations can be relatively sustained changes in dynamics such as walking
through thick brush, or with exoskeletons, or other loads on the torso or limbs.
Perturbations also can be momentary disturbances such as a shift in load or
asymmetrical load that creates cross-coupling forces due to the moment-of-
inertia tensor and potentially destabilizing coriolis motions at the head, although
research is needed in this area.
1.1.2-4.3 Optical
perturbations
2.2.1 Upright Stance Stability Optical information (e.g., flow fields) play an important role in the control of
locomotion but it is not sufficient. Intermodal invariants are required to
disambiguate different causes of motion and to coordinate the multiple degrees
of freedom involved in the control of human movement (multi-input/multi-
output or MIMO control). Proprioceptive systems are utilized along with visual
and vestibular systems to pick up information in intermodal invariants.
1.1.2-5 Target Following An extensive body of work of human control of physical systems can provide a
source of innovation and insight in the study of human control of locomotion.
There is a principled and utilitarian distinction between target following and
disturbance regulation in this literature.
1.1.2-5.1 Target acquisition 5.4.1 Approach Relative object motion The critical biomechanics issues here are the extent to which perceptual
systems can pick up information that supports rational path planning.
Bastin, J., Jacobs, D.M., Morice, A.H.P., Craig, C., & Montagne, G. (2008). Testing the role of expansion in the
prospective control of locomotion. Experimental Brain Research, DOI 10.1007/s00221-008-1522-6.
Morice, A.H.P., Francois, M., Jacobs, D.M., & Montagne, G. (2009). Environmental constraints modify the way an
interceptive action is controlled. Experimental Brain Research, DOI 10.1007/s00221-009-2147-0.
1.1.2-5.2 Unit cohesion 5.4.3 Maintain Distance Relative object motion The critical issues for biomechanics here include (a) the unintentional dispersion
of individuals within a team or squad generally over times scales of tens of
minutes to hours, and (b) the extent to which such dispersion is influenced by
hyper-local terrain features that are different for leader and follower or flanker.
van Ulzen, N.R., Lamothb, C.J.C., Andreas Daffertshofer, A., Semin, G.R., & Beek, P.J. (2008). Characteristics of
instructed and uninstructed interpersonal coordination while walking side-by-side, Neuroscience Letters, 432(2), 88-93.
Moussa, M., Perozo, N., Garnier, S., Helbing, D., Theraulaz, G. (2010). The walking behaviour of pedestrian social
groups and its impact on crowd dynamics. PLoS ONE, 5(4), 1-7.
Marsh, K.L., Richardson, M.J., & Baron, R.B. (2006). Contrasting approaches to perceiving and acting with others.
Ecological Psychology, 18(1), 138.
1.1.2-5.3 Dynamic visual
acuity
4.1.3 Eye movements Dynamic visual acuity Perturbations to the head during locomotion present a challenge to the visual
system. Imperfect compensation for such perturbations by the oculomotor and
head-neck system lead to blur of the retinal image that in many ways is like
blur due to optical imperfections in the lens of the eye. Dynamic visual acuity
thus can be assessed with optometric methods analogous to those used in
conventional eye examinations.
Hillman, E.J., Bloomberg, J.J., McDonald, P.V., & Cohen, H.S. (1999). Dynamic visual acuity while walking in normals
and labyrinthine-deficient patients. Journal of Vestibular Research, 9, 4957.
Roberts, R.A., Gans, R.E., Johnson, E.L., & Chisolm, T.H. (2006). Computerized dynamic visual acuity with volitional
head movement in patients with vestibular dysfunction. Annals of Otology, Rhinology & Laryngology, 115(9), 658-666.
1.1.3 Crawling
1.1.3-2 Natural Variations HQDA (2008). Movement. In: FM 3-21.75: The Warrior Ethos and Soldier Combat Skills (Chapter 7). Washington DC:
HQDA.
1.1.3-2.1 High crawl 3.1.1 Pushing & Pulling Crawling The critical biomechanics issues here pertain to the efficiency of this mode of
locomotion that, while unusual for adults, can be important in defilade
movements and thus the tradeoff between survivability and mobility. To the
extent that defilade movement can be critical to the element of surprise,
efficient crawling also relates to the three-way tradeoff among survivability,
mobility, and lethality.
Patrick, S.K., Noah, J.A., & Yang, J.F. (2009). Interlimb coordination in human crawling reveals similarities in
development and neural control With quadrupeds. Journal of Neurophysiology, 101, 603613.
1.1.3-2.2 Low Crawl 3.1.1 Pushing & Pulling Crawling The critical biomechanical issues here include (a) learning of novel or rare
patterns of movement for which there may not be viable options, and (b) the
relationship between arm strength and load that imposes limits on the ability to
high crawl.
HQDA (2008). Movement. In: FM 3-21.75: The Warrior Ethos and Soldier Combat Skills (Chapter 7). Washington DC:
HQDA.
Adolph, K. E. & Robinson, S. R. (2011). The road to walking: What learning to walk tells us about development. In P.
Zelazo (Ed.). Oxford handbook of developmental psychology. NY: Oxford University Press.
1.1.3-3.1 Spatially
constrained crawl
3.1.1 Pushing & Pulling Crawling The critical biomechanical issues here pertain to the relationship between path
length, transit time, and narrowness or geometry of a traversable space.
Gallagher, S., Pollard, J., Porter, W.L. (2010, Sept.). Characteristics of gait in restricted vertical space versus
unrestricted walking. Proceedings of the Ergonomics Annual Meeting, 54(15), 1149-1153.
Gallagher, S., Pollard, J., Porter, W.L. (2011). Locomotion in restricted space: Kinematic and electromyographic analysis
of stoopwalking and crawling. Gait & Posture, Volume 33(1), 71-76. [preprint available]
1.2 Fording
1.2.1 Swimming 3.1.1 Pushing & Pulling Swimming The critical biomechanical issues here are positive buoyancy and range of
motion of the arms and legs.
1.2.2 Treading 3.1.1 Pushing & Pulling Treading The critical biomechanical issues here are positive buoyancy and the body
orientation in stable equilibrium (e.g., face up vice face down).
1.2.3 Submerged 5.1.2 Coordinated (breathing) Submerged The critical biomechanical issues here are neutral buoyancy and neutral
equilibrium of body orientation (e.g., accomplished through a combination of
weights, buoyancy devices, breathing).
1.3 Climbing
A-3
1.3.1 Ascending 3.1.1 Pushing & Pulling Ascending Beyond strength and physical fitness, the critical issues here include (a) the
influence of bulk (i.e., volume, shape, distribution of load) on leverage, and (b)
cooperative physical capabilities of teamwork (e.g., boosting, acting as platform
for another person).
Wong, E.K.L., & Ng, G.Y.F. (2009). Strength profiles of shoulder rotators in healthy sport climbers and nonclimbers.
Journal of Athletic Training, 44(5), 527530.
Nieuwenhuys, A., Pijpers, J.R., Oudejans, R.R.D., & Bakker, F.C., (2008 ). The influence of anxiety on visual attention in
climbing. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 30, 171-185.
Shields, B.J., Fernandez, S.A., & Smith, G.A. (2009). Epidemiology of cheerleading stunt-related injuries in the United
States. Journal of Athletic Training, 44(6), 586594.
1.3.2 Hanging 3.1.1 Pushing & Pulling Hanging Beyond strength and physical fitness, the critical issues here include (a) the
influence of bulk (i.e., volume, shape, distribution of load) on range of motion
and body orientation as in using a rope to cross an obstacle in the terrain (e.g.,
as in the "one rope bridge"), and (b) cooperative physical capabilities of
teamwork (e.g., pulling or holding another person from falling).
1.3.3 Descending 1.4.3 Landing Descending The critical biomechanical issues here include (a) the height from which one can
jump without unacceptable risk of injury or impact on subsequent tasks
performance, and (b) the influence of bulkiness of load on the leverage in
supporting and moving one's body.
1.4 Jumping
1.4.1 Elevating 3.1.1 Pushing & Pulling Elevating The critical biomechanical issues here include (a) the tradeoff between climbing
and jumping up to higher surface of support, and (b) cooperative physical
capabilities of teamwork (e.g., boosting, acting as platform for another person).
1.4.2 Gap crossing 1.1.1 Running Gap crossing The critical biomechanical issues here pertain the ability to stride across a
discontinuity in the surface of support and one's perception of this affordance.
1.4.3 Landing 2.4.1 Self-generated reactive
force
Landing The critical biomechanical issues here pertain to shock absorption and
stabilization for a subsequent activity [e.g., 3.4.2]. In particular, cross-coupling
forces due to asymmetrical loads are an important consideration because of
simultaneous compression and shear on intervertebral disks which increase the
likelihood of tissue damage.
Sell, T.C., Chu, Y., Abt, J.P., Nagai, T., Deluzio, J.D., McGrail, M.A., Rowe. R.S., & Lephart, S.M. (2010). Minimal
additional weight of combat equipment alters air assault Soldiers landing biomechanics. Military Medicine, 175(1), 41-
27.
Santello, M. (2005). Review of motor control mechanisms underlying impact absorption from falls. Gait and Posture 21
(2005) 8594.
2. Postural Control
2.1 Bipedal Stance
2.1.1 Upright Stance 3.2.3 Transporting objects Upright stance Insofar as standing requires more energy than sitting, the critical biomechanical
issues here pertain to the capabilities that standing makes available (i.e., the
tasks that can be performed). Constraints on postural control (e.g., load) then
can be assessed in terms of limitations on performance in tasks for which
standing is necessary.
2.1.2 Leaning 3.4.3 Reaching Leaning The critical biomechanical issues here pertain to robust control (e.g., with
respect to boundaries of the foot-ground interface) vice optimal control (e.g.,
minimizing energy expenditure while standing. Leaning is exceptionally
important, paradigmatically, because it reveals the importance if not primacy of
controlling the thrust vector at the support surface. Specifically, it facilitates
investigation of "time to contact" (i.e., "time to boundary") of the thrust vector
(e.g., "center of pressure") with the boundaries of the foot-ground interface
(e.g., approximately the boundaries of the foot for an extensive surface of
support) given the momentary velocity of the center of pressure.
van Wegen, E.E., van Emmerik, R.E.A., Riccio, G.E. (2002). Postural orientation: Age-related changes in variability and
time-to-boundary. Human Movement Science, 21, 6184.
Riccio, G. E. (1993). Information in movement variability. About the qualitative dynamics of posture and orientation. In
K. M. Newell, & D. M. Corcos (Eds.), Variability and motor control (pp. 317357). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics
Publishers.
2.1.3 Crouching 5.3.2 Defilade Posture Crouching The critical biomechanical issues here pertain to flow and transition into and out
of this posture.
2.2 Nonstanding posture
2.2.1 Seated 2.3.1 To/From Seated Seated The most critical biomechanical issues here pertain to the ability to sit for hours
at a time inside an armored vehicle or otherwise in a small enclosure. To what
extent, for example, is there room for the kit that is necessary or desirable for
the mission? To what extent will strained postures with loads on the Soldier's
lap and around the legs increase heat strain, peripheral numbness, and muscle
weakness in the legs or core?
2.2.2 Prone 2.3.2 To/From Prone Prone The most critical biomechanical issues here are the constraints imposed by
bulky loads to get into positions that can be maintained for a period of time
and, more importantly, to what extent one can look around or perform manual
tasks with this amount of contact with the support surface [3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4,
3.5, 4.1].
2.2.3 Supine 2.3.3 To/From Supine Supine This is a rare position but one that is logically possible if not preferable in
unusual situations such as those requiring the use of the hands to do work
other than for crawling [1.1.3, 2.2.2, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5]. Similar issues
apply to supine and prone positions which are implicit in tradeoffs that are the
basis for choosing one or the other posture.
2.3 Getting Up
2.3.1 To/From Seated 2.1.1 Upright Stance From seated The most critical biomechanical issues here pertain to egress from a vehicle
after sitting for hours in a cramped space potentially cluttered with bulky and
heavy equipment [2.2.3]. What are the implications of such effects for egress
and rapid transition to tasks requiring bipedal stance and locomotion?
2.3.2 To/From Prone 2.1.1 Upright Stance From prone The most critical biomechanical issues here pertain to flow and transition
through tactical activities that are characterized by speed, surprise, and
violence of action and that engender tradeoffs among mobility, survivability, and
lethality. Getting into and out of this posture reflects different tradeoffs and
different outcomes. Getting into this posture probably is driven more by speed,
for example, while getting out of this posture is driven more by stability of the
ensuing posture.
2.3.3 To/From Supine 2.1.1 Upright Stance From supine The most critical biomechanical issues here pertain to flow and transition
through tactical activities that are characterized by speed, surprise, and
violence of action and that engender tradeoffs among mobility, survivability, and
lethality. Getting into and out of this posture reflects different tradeoffs and
different outcomes. Getting into this posture probably is driven more by speed,
for example, while getting out of this posture is driven more by stability of the
ensuing posture.
2.4 Energy absorption
2.4.1 Self-Generated Reactive
Force
1.4.3 Landing Self-generated reactive force The most critical biomechanical issues here pertain to the effects of shock
transmitted through the musculoskeletal system as well as soft tissues. A
relatively neglected issue is the amount of cross-coupling forces and motions
due to the moment of inertia tensors for various body segments. Such multi-
axis perturbations can be difficult to control, compensate for, or recover from.
They also can generate simultaneous compression and shear on the
intervertebral disks which increase the likelihood of intervertebral tissue
damage.
2.4.2 Imposed Contact Shock 4.4.1 Kinetics constrained
reasoning
Imposed contact shock The most critical biomechanical issues here pertain to combatives. To what
extent, for example, are there tradeoffs between armor protection and postural
flexibility in absorbing impact. To what extent are there tradeoffs between blunt
trauma and penetrating wounds.
2.4.3 Imposed Blast Effect 4.4.1 Kinetics constrained
reasoning
Imposed blast effect The most critical biomechanical issue here is positioning to minimize exposure
to blast waves and environmental interaction effects such as Mach stems and
blast wind. In explosive breaching, getting to a less vulnerable location can be
an action that is left to the last possible second (or fraction of a second) for
tactical reasons and to minimize the chance of malfunction. Thus, reaction time
and locomotor response time is an important issue [1.1.1-1, 1.1.1-2].
North American Treaty Organisation Research and Technology Organisation (2007). Test methodology for protection of
vehicle occupants against anti-vehicular landmine effects. RTO-TR-HFM-090 AC/323(HFM-090)TP/72. Neuilly-sur-Seine
Cedex, France: NATO.
Yoganandan, N., Cusick, J.F., Pintar, F.A., PhD, & Rao, R.D. (2001). Whiplash injury determination with conventional
spine imaging and cryomicrotomy. Spine, 26(22), 24432448.
3. Nested Action Systems
3.1 Forcing
A-4
3.1.1 Pushing & Pulling
Objects
2.1.1 Upright stance Pushing & Pulling The most critical biomechanical issue here is the speed and amount of precision
control attending the activity. Both speed and precision create significant co-
contraction in muscles of the core or trunk which, for repetitive motion,
significantly increases the likelihood of injury as well as fatigue and heat stress.
Strength and flexibility training for the core can be helpful along with education
that familiarizes Soldiers with the tendency to rush through manual activities
that have much less importance and salience in extremis than do activities that
support situation awareness.
For pushing and pulling while standing, a relatively neglected area of research is
coordination between control of the thrust vector at the foot-ground interface
and control of the thrust vector at the hand-object interface. Control of the
latter is utterly impossible without control of the former.
Marras, W.S., Knapik, G.G., Ferguson, S. (2009). Loading along the lumbar spine as influence by speed, control, load
magnitude, and handle height during pushing, Clinical Biomechanics, 24, 155163.
McGill, S. (2010). Core training: evidence translating to better performance and injury prevention. Strength and
Conditioning Journal, 32(3), 33-46.
Todd, A. (2005). Current trends in research focused on pushing and pulling. Ergonomics SA, 17(2), 42-53.
Fischer, S.L., Brenneman, E.C., Wells, R.P., & Dickerson, C.R., (2012). Relationships between psychophysically
acceptable and maximum voluntary hand force capacity in the context of underlying biomechanical limitations. Applied
Ergonomics, in press.
3.1.2 Twisting & Bending
Objects
4.2.1 Hands (haptics) Pushing & Pulling The most critical biomechanical issues here pertain to the level of tactile
sensitivity while wearing gloves or when using tools [see also 5.2.2].
3.1.3 Gripping & Squeezing
Objects
4.2.1 Hands (haptics) Gripping & Squeezing The most critical biomechanical issues here pertain to the level of tactile
sensitivity while wearing gloves or when using tools [see also 5.2.2].
Gorniak, S.L., Zatsiorsky, V.M., & Mark L. Latash, M.L. (2009). Hierarchical control of static prehension: I.
Biomechanics. Experimental Brain Research, 193(4), 615631.
3.2 Carrying
3.2.1 Lifting Objects 2.1.2 Leaning Lifting The most critical biomechanical issues pertain to (a) leaning toward the anterior
boundaries of the foot-ground interface that increase the difficulty to postural
stabilization especially in the presence of unpredictable perturbations such as
can occur with poorly fitting or asymmetric loads, and (b) asymmetries in load
that can create multi-planar perturbations of the head and body (i.e., bending
and twisting) even for apparently simply bending in the sagittal plane. Such
multi-axis perturbations can be difficult to control. They also can generate
simultaneous compression and shear on the intervertebral disks which increase
the likelihood of intervertebral tissue damage.
Natarajan, R.N., Lavender, S.A., An, H.A, & B. J. Andersson, G.B.J. (2008). Biomechanical response of a lumbar
intervertebral disc to manual lifting activities: A poroelastic finite element model study. SPINE, 33(18). 19581965.
Granata, K.P., & Marras, W.S. (1999). Relation between spinal load factors and the high-risk probability of occupational
low-back disorder. Ergonomics, 42(9), 1187-1199.
3.2.2 Placing Objects 3.3.1 Precision control Placing objects accurately and
without damage in a specific
place
The most critical biomechanical issue here pertains to co-contraction of the
trunk muscles when fine control of massive objects is required. For repetitive
motion, this significantly increases the likelihood of injury as well as fatigue and
heat stress. Placing of delicate objects may be problematic because of instability
throughout the range of motion due to massive, bulky, or unfamiliar loads. In
this respect, control of kinetics is at least as important as control of kinematics
with respect to outcomes [3.4.2, 4.4.1, 4.4.2].
Riccio, G. E., & McDonald, P. (1988). Characteristics of EVA mass handling skill. Society of Automotive Engineers Paper
No. 981625 (also NASA Tech. Rep. 3684).
3.2.3 Transporting Objects 2.1.2 Leaning Moving objects between two
locations
The most critical biomechanical issues here pertain to the multi-planar motions
of the head and body (i.e., bending and twisting) that generally result from
moving an object from one place to another, especially when but not limited to
situations in which motion is predominantly in the frontal plane. Such multi-axis
motions can be difficult to control. They also can generate simultaneous
compression and shear on the intervertebral disks which increase the likelihood
of intervertebral tissue damage.
Marras, W. S., Allread, W.G., Burr, D.L., & Fathallah, F.A. (2000). Prospective validation of a low-back disorder risk
model and assessment of ergonomic interventions associated with manual materials handling tasks. Ergonomics,
43(11), 1866-1886.
North American Treaty Organisation Research and Technology Organisation (2009). Optimizing Operational Physical
Fitness. RTO Technical Report TR-HFM-080. Neuilly-sur-Seine Cedex, France: NATO.
3.3 Manipulating
3.3.1 Precision Control 4.2.1 Hands (haptics) Precision control The most critical biomechanical issues here pertain to (a) interactions between
cognitive load and motor performance, (b) coupling of multiple biomechanical
subsystems, and (c) constraints of Soldier load on body segment mobility within
its range of motion such that impedance to motion is nonmonotonic as a
function of position over the range of motion.
Ramaekers, J.G., Moeller, M.R., van Ruitenbeek, P., E.L. Theunissen, E.L., Schneider, E., Kauert, G. (2006). Cognition
and motor control as a function of Delta-9-THC concentration in serum and oral fluid: Limits of impairment. Drug and
Alcohol Dependence, 85, 114122.
Ramenzoni, V.C., Davis, T.J., Riley, M.A., Shockley, K. & Baker, A.A. (2011). Joint action in a cooperative precision task:
nested processes of intrapersonal and interpersonal coordination. Experimental Brain Research, 211, 447457.
3.3.2 Bimanual Control 5.2.3 Use of sensory
accessories
Bimanual control The most critical biomechanical issues here pertain to closed kinematic chains
and closed kinetic chains as opposed to the dynamical coupling that is given
much more attention in the scientific literature. Closed kinetic chains are as
mundane yet critical as bending and twisting objects. The utility of closed
kinematic chains can be a bit more abstract. A closed kinematic chain of
interest, for example, is keeping a rifle off the ground while walking up hill over
uneven terrain and, in doing so, to what extent the rifle becomes a sensory
accessory that can simplify and facilitate the perception of multi-axis postural
perturbations.
Turvey, M. (2008). Dynamics of effortful touch and interlimb coordination. Journal of Biomechanics, 31, 873-882.
Treffner, P.J, & M. T. Turvey, M.T (1996). Symmetry, broken symmetry, and handedness in bimanual coordination
dynamics. Experimental Brain Research, 107:463 478.
Domkin, D., Laczkom J., Jaric, S., Johansson, H., & Latash, M.L. (2002). Structure of joint variability in bimanual
pointing tasks. Experimental Brain Research, 143, 1123.
3.3.3 Wielding 4.3.2 Perceive self/other
effectivities
Wielding The most critical biomechanical issues here pertain to learning the dynamics of
particular objects and, more generally, of one's interactions with the
environment [4.3.1, 4.3.2]. Associated empirical questions address exploratory
behavior both within and across instances of performatory behavior (i.e.,
preparation and execution). Introducing exploratory "dither" into a steering
wheel of a vehicle to feel its handling qualities in particular terrain is an
example of concurrent exploratory and performatory behavior. "Hefting" an
object before throwing it is an example of preparatory exploratory behavior.
Pagano, C. (2004). Dynamic touch in varying media and for proprioception. Proceedings of the Human Factors and
Ergonomics Society 48th Annual Meeting (pp., 1321-1325).
Kingma, I. Beek, P.J., & van Diee, J.H., (2002). The Inertia Tensor Versus Static Moment and Mass in Perceiving Length
and Heaviness of Hand-Wielded Rods. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 28(1),
180191.
3.4 End-point control
3.4.1 Throwing 3.3.3 Wielding Throwing The most critical biomechanical issues here pertain to the anisotropic
constraints of Soldier load on body segment mobility within its range of motion.
Movement patterns that with which one has a lifetime of experience may have
to be adapted or re-learned as a result of load constraints. Habits may have to
be resisted or modified nontrivially.
Zhu, Q., & Bingham, G.P. (2008). Is hefting to perceive the affordance for throwing a smart perceptual mechanism?
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34(4), 929943.
Bonza, J.E., Fields, S.K., Yard, E.E., & Comstock, R.D., (2009). Shoulder injuries among United States high school
athletes during the 20052006 and 20062007 school years. Journal of Athletic Training, 44(1), 7683
3.4.2 Aiming 2.1.1 Upright Stance Aiming Aiming imposes constraints on postural control that are as influential as gravity
and acceleration in determining stability and equilibrium for postural control.
Such "superordinate constraints" are the rule rather than the exception. In
tactical marksmanship, for example, aiming is never done in isolation. It usually
follows movement and approach to a vantage point and, generally, requires
rapid stabilization of the postural foundation for seeing and manual control. The
weaving together of these systems concurrently and sequentially is a
fundamental aspect of coordination in operationally relevant situations.
Palmer, C. (2012). Postures for precision: An ecological approach to marksmanship and the issue of warfighter load.
Doctoral Dissertation. University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA.
Palmer, C.J., Riccio, G.E., & van Emmerik, R.E.A. (2012). Orienting under load: Intrinsic dynamics and postural
affordances for visual perception. Ecological Psychology, 24(2), 95-121.
Riccio, G.E. & Stoffregen, T.A. (1988). Affordances as constraints on the control of stance. Human Movement Science,
7, 265-300.
3.4.3 Reaching 2.1.2 Leaning Reaching The most critical biomechanical issues here pertain to the coordination of
postural control and manual control. Increased range of motion of the hands
with respect to the surroundings (vice with respect to the body) is one of the
most important affordances of bipedal stance. This range of motion is
determined by the spatial limits on control of the thrust vector at the foot-
ground interface. Controllability of the thrust vector can be operationalized in
terms of "time to contact" [sic] with the boundaries of the foot-ground interface
("time to boundary").
Trivedi, H., Leonard, J.A., Ting, L.A., Stapley, P.J. (2010). Postural responses to unexpected perturbations of balance
during reaching. Experimental Brain Research, 202, 485491.
Thelen, E., & Spencer, J.P. (1998) Postural control during reaching in young infants: A dynamical systems approach.
Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 22(4), 507514.
Haddad, J.M., Claxton, L.J., Keen, R., Neil E. Berthier, N.E., Riccio, G.E., Hamill, J., Van Emmerik, R.E.A. (2012).
Development of the coordination between posture and manual control. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology.
111(2), 286-298. [preprint available]
3.5 Don/Doff
3.5.1 Don 3.5.2 Doff Don The most critical biomechanical issues here pertain to the capability to don
clothing and equipment both quickly and accurately. Quickness will be
determined by range of motion required to don as well as by strength and
precision control required to fasten. Accuracy reflects snugness of fit and
symmetry of distribution to the extent that the design of clothing and
equipment allows. However mundane, all specification for clothing and
equipment should include such requirements based on biomechanical relevance
and precision.
3.5.2 Doff 3.5.1 Don Doff The most critical biomechanical issues pertain to the capability to remove
clothing and equipment quickly and without damage. Quickness will be
determined by range of motion required to don as well as by strength and
precision control required to unfasten. Some allowances may be made for
designs that allow clothing and equipment to be removed more quickly with the
aid of a teammate as long as there is some way an individual can remove it
albeit more slowly. Any such specifications for clothing and equipment should
include such requirements based on biomechanical relevance and precision.
3.5.3 Adjust 3.5.1 Don Adjust The most critical biomechanical issues here pertain to task specificity of load
configurations. Utilizing biomechanics, in principle, load configurations can be
optimized for particular tasks. In practice, however, Soldier load planning will be
based on a variety of tasks required to execute a mission. Tradeoffs are implicit
in such decisions. Biomechanics can inform such tradeoffs to the extent that
different kinds of biomechanical tasks can be made commensurable with
respect to some parameters that are operationally relevant and important (and
not limited to negative effects such as fatigue and head stress). This is a
relatively neglected area of research. Any such research also would provide a
foundation for designing load configurations that would be easier to adjust in
stride in a matter of minutes.
4. Nested Perception/Cognition
4.1 Sensory Orientation
A-5
4.1.1 Ocular Dynamics 5.2.3 Use of sensory
accessories
Control of pupil diameter and
shape of the lens
The most critical biomechanical issues here pertain to multi-criterion control of
pupil diameter and lens shape (accommodation) with respect to the interacting
factors of retinal illuminance, depth of field, and instantaneous field of view
over which there is functional visual acuity. This is important in the design and
use of devices that are placed between the eye and the optical environment
including everything from conventional prescription eyewear to low-light
amplifiers as well as helmet mounted near-infrared imaging systems and
thermal imaging systems. The interactions between the ocular biomechanical
systems involved in visual acuity with biomechanical systems that reduce
transmission of vibration to the head, as well as with relative motion between
helmet-mounted systems, is a relatively neglected area of research.
Longtin, A., & Milton, J.G. (1989). Insight into the transfer function, gain, and oscillation onset for the pupil light reflex
using nonlinear delay-differential equations. Biological Cybernetics, 61, 51-58.
Harrison, N.A., Gray, M.A., & Critchley, H.D. (2009). Dynamic pupillary exchange engages brain regions encoding social
salience. Social Neuroscience, 4(3), 233-243.
4.1.2 Eye Movements 5.2.3 Use of sensory
accessories
Eye movements The most critical biomechanical issues here pertain to dynamic visual acuity.
Vibrations that are transmitted to the head while walking, running, and riding in
a vehicle are compensated to some extent by the vestibulo-ocular response
(VOR) and optokinetic nystagmus (OKN). An important question is the extent to
which these systems are influenced (e.g., their efficacy is limited) by the
restricted field of view of helmet-mounted display systems and by their motion
relative to the eyes as a result of perturbations of the head (e.g., due to whole-
body vibration). These questions require a basic understanding of how
individuals look around as they move about in the environment. Eye movement
technology has recently been developed that allows such questions to be
studied experimentally.
Franchak, J.M., & Adolph, K.E. (2010). Visually guided navigation: Head-mounted eye-tracking of natural locomotion in
children and adults. Vision Research, 50(24), 27662774.
Gibson, J., (1958/2009). Visually controlled locomotion and visual orientation in animals. the British Journal of
Psychology, 100, 259271.
4.1.3 Head Movements 5.2.3 Use of sensory
accessories
Head movements The most critical biomechanical issues here pertain to dynamic visual acuity.
Vibrations that are transmitted to the head while walking, running, and riding in
a vehicle are compensated to some extent by the vestibulo-collic response
(VCR). One important question is the extent to which the importance and use of
this system is increased by the restricted field of view of helmet-mounted
display systems. A related question is the extent to which the efficacy and use
of this systems is limited by restrictions on head movement due to loads around
the neck and shoulders or by weight on the head, especially asymmetrical loads
that change the moment of inertia tensor for the head making control of head
movement more complicated. The latter is important, even without whole-body
vibration insofar as it influences the situation awareness fostered by the ability
to look around.
Keshner, E.A., & Peterson, B.W. (1996). Mechanisms controlling head stabilization. I. Head-neck dynamics during
random rotations in the horizontal plane. Journal of Neurophysiology, 73, 2293-2301.
Treleaven, J. (2008). Sensorimotor disturbances in neck disorders affecting postural stability, head and eye movement
control. Manual Therapy, 13, 211.
4.2 Haptics Perceiving through active touching
4.2.1 Hands 3.1.3 Gripping & Squeezing Supple manual control The most critical biomechanical issues here pertain to tactile sensitivity and
mobility of the fingers as influenced by gloves. Also important is any temporary
impairment of muscle and joint senses as well as skin senses as a result of (a)
restricted blood flow due to carried loads, (b) peripheral (cervical) nerve trauma
due to loads on the head, or (c) cold weather. As robotics research makes
abundantly clear, supple use of the hands such as involving grasping and
squeezing is almost impossible without haptic perception.
4.2.2 Feet 1.1.2 Walking Interactions with support
surface
The most critical biomechanical issues here pertain to tactile sensitivity and
mobility of the feet as influenced by footwear. Also important is any temporary
impairment of muscle and joint senses as well as skin senses as a result of (a)
restricted blood flow due to carried loads, (b) peripheral (lumbar) nerve trauma
due to loads on the torso or (c) cold weather. As neurological and rehabilitative
research makes abundantly clear, stance and locomotion is difficult without
haptic perception, and it is almost impossible on challenging surfaces.
4.2.3 Other than Hands/Feet 5.2.2 Use of prosthetics Proprioception Haptics that utilize sensory systems other than the hands and feet range from
the mundane to the exotic even within the realm of what is operationally
relevant. Operationally mundane haptics include feedback from the skin,
muscle, and joint senses that are involved in perceiving the fit of clothing and
equipment. This is more than a matter of comfort. This feedback is important in
perceiving one's capabilities for movement and its consequences [4.3.2], and it
is the basis for fastening and adjusting clothing to optimize such effectivities.
More exotic haptics include use of the tongue as a control interface analogous
to assistive technology for quadriplegic or individuals with severe motor
disorders. The tactical importance of such devices is in being able to control
devices without sound or movement, that is, with extreme stealth.
4.3
Affordances/effectivities
Perception of affordances depends, by definition, on the ability to appreciate the
relationship between one's body and environment. Thus there is some
ambiguity in the distinction between affordances and effectiviities (4.3.2). In
the mathematical-physical sense, they are duals. The most practical distinction
is that affordances enable generalization of a specific human-environment
interaction with respect to action (e.g., a wall is passable by breaching,
climbing, or walking around) while effectivities enable generalization of a
specific human-environment interaction with respect to the environment (e.g., a
breaching tool enables one to get through a locked door, a gate, or a wall).
Gibson, E.J. (1988). Exploratory behavior in the development of perceiving, acting, and the acquiring of knowledge.
Annual Review of Psychology, 39, 1-42.
Greno, J.G. (1994). Gibson's affordances. Psychological Review, 101, No. 2, 336-342.
Stoffregen, T.A. (2003). Affordances as properties of the animal-environment system. Ecological Psychology, 15(2),
115134.
4.3.1 Perceive
1.1 Locomotion Utility of objects/surroundings
for action
Prospective control of action depends on the ability to perceive what objects
and the surroundings afford for action (e.g., traversability, passability,
movability or to "move over, through, and around"). Understanding a Soldier's
capability to perceive affordances will guide assessments, planning, and training
for in-stride adjustment in routes taken to reach some milestone, especially
when such decisions are time critical and made in the moment. Anything that
functionally changes the task-critical attributes of the environment changes the
affordances for action (e.g., scaling a wall in rain that makes surfaces slippery).
Research supports the common conjecture among nonscientists that
affordances can be learned. Soldiers can benefit by learning what natural
environments (e.g., snow, sand, mud, clutter) afford for action, for better or for
worse. There is a need for research on conditions that foster or impede such
learning.
Wagman, J.B. & Taylor, K.R. (2005). Perceiving affordances for aperture crossing for the person-plus-object system.
Ecological Psychology, 17(2), 105130.
Ishak, S., Adolph, K.E., & Lin, G.C. (2008). Perceiving affordances for fitting through apertures. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 34(6), 15011514.
Fajen, B.R., Riley, M.A., & Turvey, M.T. (2008). Information, affordances, and the control of action in sport. International
Journal of Sport Psychology, 40, 79-107.
4.3.2 Perceive Self/Others
Effectivities
3.3 Manipulating One's capabilities for action or
the capabilities of another
person
Prospective control of action depends on the ability to perceive what kinds of
action one is capable. This overlaps with the social psychological construct of
self efficacy (4.3.3). Effectivities are physical and veridical while self-efficacy is
influenced by social and personality factors that can lead to self knowledge that
is not veridical. Self efficacy thus tends to focus, although not of necessity, on
nonveridical self knowledge while perception of effectivities tends to focus on
veridical self knowledge.
Understanding a Soldier's self knowledge is important in designing interventions
that improve intertemporal reasoning such as decisions about what to do in the
moment given what has to be done in next or in the near future. Adaptive self
knowledge is especially important given that any functional changes in task-
critical attributes of the body (e.g., weight, volume, flexibility) change
effectivities or capabilities for action. Soldiers can benefit by learning what load
does to their capabilities for action, for better or for worse. There is a need for
research on conditions that foster or impede such learning.
Turvey, M.T. (1996). Dynamic touch. American Psychologist, 51(11), 1134-1152.
Harrison, S.J., Hajnal, A., Lopresti-Goodman, S., Isenhower, R.W., & Kinsella-Shaw, J.M. (2011). Perceiving action-
relevant properties of tools through dynamic touch: Effects of mass distribution, exploration style, and intention.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37(1), 193206.
Proffitt, D.R. (2006). Embodied perception and the economy of action. Psychological Science, 1(2), 110-122.
4.3.3 Self Efficacy 4.4 Embodied cognition Self efficacy Life and death decisions are made in extremis based on knowledge of the one's
own capabilities and one's capabilities as part of a collective. It thus is critically
important to understand the veridicality of such self knowledge and the factors
that influence it. Moreover, one's capabilities for action transcend mere physics
in that they depend on sources of human motivation, learning, and
dauntlessness (see e.g., Bandura, 2006; Riccio et al., 2010). There is a vast
resource of experimental methods and findings in social psychology that relate
more or less directly to these factors and to self efficacy in particular. This
research can be leveraged in coming to a deeper understanding of Soldier's self
knowledge, including knowledge of biomechanical capabilities for action (see
e.g., McAuley et al, 2011). When combined with a broad and deep
understanding of biomechanics, this research can have exceedingly practical
implications about materiel solutions (e.g., cognitive and biomechanical
augmentation) and non-materiel solutions (e.g., training, role models,
collaborative reflection).
Bandura, A. (2006). Toward a psychology of human agency. Psychological Science, 1(2), 164-180.
McAuley, E., Mailey, E.L., Mullen, S.P., Szabo, A.N., Wojcicki, T.R., White, S.M., Gothe, N., Olson, E.A., Kramer, A.F.
(2011). Growth trajectories of exercise self-efficacy in older adults: Influence of measures and initial status. Health
Psychology. Advance onlinepublication. doi: 10.1037/a0021567
Riccio, G., Diedrich, F., & Cortes, M. (Eds.) (2010). An initiative in outcomes-based training and education: Implications
for an integrated approach to values-based requirements (Chapters 3-5, pp. 50-141). Fort Meade, MD: U.S. Army
Asymmetric Warfare Group.
Dennis R. Proffitt
4.4 Embodied cognition Constraint-based (generally inter-temporal) reasoning taking into account
physics of the body and interaction with the environment. Embodied cognition is
a powerful trans disciplinary unifying force across the physical, behavioral, and
social sciences. Research in robotics and artificial intelligence has been an
important source of innovation for quite some time in this relative new research
that cuts across diverse schools of thought. Insights from robotics is relevant to
human thinking and action as well as the development and operation of robots.
Wilson (2002) nicely captures current practices and promise in this line of
research: "The emerging viewpoint of embodied cognition holds that cognitive
processes are deeply rooted in the bodys interactions with the world. This
position actually houses a number of distinct claims, some of which are more
controversial than others. This paper distinguishes and evaluates the following
six claims: (1) cognition is situated; (2) cognition is time-pressured; (3) we off-
load cognitive work onto the environment; (4) the environment is part of the
cognitive system; (5) cognition is for action; (6) offline cognition is body
based."
Wilson, M. (2002). Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9 (4), 625-636.
Anderson, M.L. (2003). Field Review Embodied Cognition: A field guide. Artificial Intelligence, 149, 91130.
A-6
4.4.1 Kinetics-constrained
reasoning
3.1.1 Pushing & Pulling Kinetics-constrained
reasoning
There are at least three subcategories of kinetic constraints that are relevant to
mission planning, load planning, and route planning:
(1) The capacity to produce force and transfer energy to the surroundings. This
is important for common Soldier tasks such as locomotion, materials handling,
and physically altering surfaces and structures. The capacity to do such work
over a period of time or spatial scale is heavily dependent on individual
differences such as fitness and skill (see e.g., NATO, 2009). Planning missions
that can be successfully executed with specific personnel resources requires an
understanding of such physical realities (see also 1.1.1-1.5, 1.1.1-1.6, 1.1.2-
1.5, 1.1.2-6).
(2) Tools and equipment enable Soldiers to accomplish tasks that they
otherwise could not or at least not in sufficient time or with a minimal of
personal energy expenditure (see e.g., NATO, 2009). Understanding what can
be achieved with tools and equipment (e.g., breaching, digging) is critical to
rational intertemporal tradeoffs about what to carry given the impact of added
weight and bulk (see also 4.3.2, 5.2).
(3) Forces of reaction relative to the forces of action are informative about work
done on the environment and energy dissipated in the environment. By
extrapolation, this relationship is informative about other kinds of actions that
are possible in the same environment, and it is the basis for exploratory
behavior in identifying persistent properties of the environment (e.g., "systems
identification"). Applying forces to probe the terrain can be informative about
traversability (see also 4.2, 4.3.1, 5.2).
North American Treaty Organisation Research and Technology Organisation (2009). Optimizing Operational Physical
Fitness. RTO Technical Report TR-HFM-080. Neuilly-sur-Seine Cedex, France: NATO.
Brooks, C.A., & Iagnemma, K. (2005). Vibration-based terrain classification for planetary exploration rovers. IEEE
Transactions on Robotics, 21(6), 1185-1190.
Apan, A., Kelly, R., Jensen, T., Butler, D., Strong, W. (2002). Spectral discrimination and separability analysis of
agricultural crops and soil attributes using aster imagery. In: Proc 11th ARSPC (Australasian Remote Sensing and
Photogrammetry Conference), Brisbane, Australia (pp. 396411).
Merlin, O., Chehbouni, A.G., Kerr, Y.H., Njoku, E.G., & Dara Entekhabi, D. (2005). A combined modeling and multi-
spectral/multi-resolution remote sensing approach for disaggregation of surface solid moisture: Application of SMOS
configuration. IEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 43(9). DOI : 10.1109/tgrs.2005.853192
4.4.2 Kinematics-constrained
reasoning
1.1.2 Walking Kinematics-constrained
reasoning
The distinction between kinematics and dynamics is always precarious for any
system capable of movement over, through, and around the environment (see
also 4.3.1, 4.4.3). It can be useful, however, to focus on kinematics when
energy dissipation in the environment is minimal and when path constraints are
mostly geometric. Research on mobile robotics tends to complement research in
cognitive science on navigation and route planning to the extent that the former
focuses more on the constraints on movement imposed by physical properties
of the mobile system (e.g., size, shape, range of motion). In this regard, trans
disciplinary research in cognition and biomechanics can adapt theories and
methods from robotics.
Hollinger, G., Singh, S., & Kehagias, A. (2010). Improving the Efficiency of Clearing with Multi-agent Teams The
International Journal of Robotics Research, 29(8), 10881105.Berens, V., Tanaka, F., & Suzuki, K. (2011).
Tompkins, P., Stentz, A., David Wettergreen, D. (2006). Mission-level path planning and re-planning for rover
exploration. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 54, 174183.
Autonomous battery management for mobile robots based on risk and gain assessment. Artificial Intelligence Review,
DOI 10.1007/s10462-011-9227-9
4.4.3 Dynamics-constrained
reasoning
1.1.1 Running Dynamics-constrained
reasoning
Reasoning that takes into account dynamics requires a deep appreciation,
although not necessarily formal knowledge, of cause-effect relationships in the
interactions between individuals or systems and the environment. Given that
almost any imaginable environment is more complex than Newtonian physics,
productive research requires constructs and approaches to simplify
nonlinearities and many levels of nesting without losing the essential aspect of
functionality and the attainment of critical outcomes. More research is needed
in methods that can bridge the gap between cognition and the myriad of
dynamical factors with respect to which military tasks must be planned,
executed, and assessed.
Rasmussen, J. (1983). Skills, rules, and knowledge; signals, signs, and symbols, and other distinctions in human
performance models. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, SMC13(3), 257-266.
S. Scherbaum, S., Dshemuchadse, M., & Kalis, A. (2008). Making decisions with a continuous mind. Cognitive,
Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 8(4), 454-474.
DuBois, E.L., Hughes, W.P., & Low, L.J.(1997). A concise theory of combat, Monterey, CA: Naval Postgraduate School.
5. General Mobility/Stability
5.1 Breathing
5.1.1 Rigidity/Valsalva 3.1.1 Pushing & Pulling Rigidity/valsalva The most critical biomechanical issue here pertains to the benefits and costs of
rigidity due to the valsalva maneuver. Benefits include stability in the narrow
sense of resistance to small perturbations over a short period of time, simplicity
of control due to freezing degrees of freedom, and leverage in isolated body
segments. Costs include blood pressure, heat stress, and damage to joints and
soft tissue especially intervertebral disks.
5.1.2 Coordinated 1.1.2 Running Coordinated The most critical biomechanical issue here is utilization of the pulmonary
system in synchrony with other musculoskeletal systems to promote
coordination and efficient energy exchange instead of being a source of
"external" disturbances to other musculoskeletal subsystems and the body as a
whole.
Lamberg, E.M., & Hagins, M. (2010). Breath control during manual free-style lifting of a maximally tolerated load.
Ergonomics. 53(3), 385392.
5.1.3 Restricted 5.3.1 Occupant in vehicle Restricted The most critical biomechanical issues here pertain to restrictions due to
clothing, equipment, and postural configurations characterized by considerable
whole-body flexion (e.g., fetal position). The proximate effects of oxygen
deprivation as well as changes in blood chemistry and muscle metabolism have
consequences for performance that can estimated and quantified.
5.2 Augmentation
5.2.1 Use of Orthotics 1.1.1 Running Use of orthotics Orthotics are distinguished here from prosthetics in focusing on materials and
structures that constrain posture and movement in ways that improve function
or that reduce the likelihood or severity of injury. The critical biomechanical
issues are (a) cushioning to reduce discomfort and the likelihood of tissue
damage, and (b) viscoelastic tuning of the human-environment with respect to
impedances of the surfaces and objects in the environment to optimize the
exchanges between potential and kinetic energy.
Carrie A. Laughton1, Irene McClay Davis2, and Joseph Hamill (2003). Effect of strike pattern and orthotic intervention
on tibial shock during running. Journal of Applied Biomechanics, 19, 153-168.
Singh, G.D., Maher, G.J., Padilla, R.R. (20090). Customized mandibular orthotics in the prevention of concussion/mild
traumatic brain injury in football players: a preliminary study. Dental Traumatology 2009; doi: 10.1111/j.1600-
9657.2009.00808.
5.2.2 Use of Prosthetics 1.1.2 Walking Use of prosthetics Prosthetics are distinguished here from orthotics in focusing on passive or
active systems that replace the function of some part of the body or otherwise
that create a new functionality. The critical biomechanical issues pertain to the
controllability of these devices and controllability of the human-environment
interactions mediated my these devices. While prosthetics research generally
focuses on rehabilitation and restoration of function for individuals with
disabilities, the same research is relevant to augmenting function in individuals
who don't have disabilities (e.g., ranging from dynamically active exoskeletons
to telerobotics).
Herr, H. (2009). Exoskeletons and orthoses: classification, design challenges and future directions. Journal of
NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, 2009, 6:21.
Dollar, A.M., & Herr, H. (2008). Lower extremity exoskeletons and active orthoses: Challenges and state-of-the-art.
IEEE Transaction on robotics, 24(1), 1-15.
McGowan, C.P., Grabowski, A.M., McDermott, W.J., Herr H.M., & Kram, R. (2012). Leg stiffness of sprinters using
running-specific prostheses. Journal of the Royal Society Interface. doi:10.1098/rsif.2011.0877
5.2.3 Use of Sensory
Accessories
1.1.2 Walking Use of sensory accessories The most critical biomechanical issues here include (a) the design and use of
devices that are placed between the eye and the optical environment, including
everything from conventional prescription eyewear to low-light amplifiers as
well as helmet mounted near-infrared imaging systems and thermal imaging
systems, for which mechanical perturbations are influential [1.1.1-1.1, 1.1.1-
5.3, 4.1]; and (c) reconnaissance performed by autonomous mobile robots as
well as unmanned ground vehicles and unmanned air vehicles that could
provide valuable route planning information when combined with models and
data for locomotion [1.1.2-1.6, 1.1.2-3, 4.4.1].
Kollenberg, T., Neumann, A., Schneider, D., Tews, T-K., Hermann, T., Ritter, H., Dierker, A., & Koesling, H., (2010,
March). Visual search in the (un)real world: How head-mounted displays affect eye movement, head movements and
target detection. Proceedings of the 2010 Symposium on Eye-Tracking Research & Applications (pp. 121-124). New
York, NY: ACM.
Jansen, S.E.M, Toet, A., & Delleman, N.J. (2010). Restricting the vertical and horizontal extent of the field-of-view:
effects on manoeuvring performance. The Ergonomics Open Journal, 3, 19-24.
Rolland, J.P. & Fuchs, H., (2000). Optical versus video see-through head-mounted displays in medical visualization.
Presence, 9(3), 287309.
5.3 Enclosed/Juxtaposed
5.3.1 Occupant in vehicle 5.1.3 Restricted (breathing) Occupant in vehicle The most critical biomechanical issues here pertain to (a) restrictions due to
whole-body flexion [5.1.3]; and (b) ingress and egress [1.1.3-3]. Volumes and
shapes for various load elements and configurations as well as range of motion
capabilities for Soldiers with load, should directly and explicitly influence vehicle
design requirements.
Paddan, G.S., & Griffin, M.J. (1988). A review of the transmission of translational seat vibration to the head. Journal of
Sound and Vibration, 215(4), 863-882.
Aptima (2007). Joint Lightweight Tactical Vehicle (JLTV) design implications for situation awareness. Aptima P-1378,
Final Report to the Wexford Group International (CACI, Inc.) for project 07581.0057.0000.
Packer Engineering (2007). [Summary of CAD models for JLTV occupants based on field-based measurements of
mockups and prototypes]. Report to the Wexford Group International (CACI, Inc.) for project 07581.0057.0000.
5.3.2 Defilade posture 5.1.3 Restricted (breathing) Defilade posture The most critical biomechanical issues here pertain to (a) restrictions due to
whole-body flexion [5.1.3]; and (b) quickly getting out of these postures to
take some action that requires locomotion or bidedal posture [2.2.2].
5.3.3 Enfilade posture 4.1.3 Head movements Enfilade posture The most critical biomechanical issues here pertain to adopting non-upright
postures to look over a barrier [2.1.3] or around a corner [2.1.2] while
minimizing exposure of the rest of the body. The mobility and range of motion
of the head is an important factor influencing situation awareness [4.1.3].
Load can impose constraints on head motion is such postures that are different
from canonical anthropometric positions.
5.4 Approach/Avoid
5.4.1 Approach 1.1.1 Running Approach Beyond considerations for target following [1.1.1-5.1, 1.1.2-5.1], the most
critical biomechanical issues here pertain to the speed and agility of movement
that minimizes noise generated and visual detectability [1.1-1], that is, the
tradeoff between speed and surprise.
5.4.2 Avoid 5.3.2 Defilade posture Avoid The most critical biomechanical issues here pertain to the length of time a
Soldier can sustain very slow movements or static postures in defilade positions
to avoid creating identifiable acoustic or optical signatures.
5.4 3 Maintain Distance 1.1.2 Walking Maintain distance The most critical biomechanical issues here pertain to unit cohesion during long
marches in challenging terrain.
A-7

Consilience in Situated Physical Ergonomics

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Consilience in Situated Physical Ergonomics

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NASCENT SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, LLC

BRINGING SCIENCE TO LIFE

You might also like