## 4 Discussion
This aligns with the meta-analysis study [47] on sedentary work tasks, which suggests that symmetrical movement patterns are associated with reduced physical strain and a lower incidence of work-related musculoskeletal disorders. Moreover, the minor right-side inclination observed in the MWE group aligns with the natural tendency for right-side dominance in the general population. This suggests that workstation design and task allocation should consider natural physiological and biomechanical predispositions to optimise ergonomic outcomes. Also, regarding the speed of movement, the highest angular velocities attained by employees at machining (MWE) and assembly workstations (AWE) offer a profound insight into the kinematic disparities inherent to these occupational roles. The marked variance observed in movement speeds between the two groups, especially the significantly higher activity levels in the machining group with peak velocities up to 8 times greater in lumbar and thoracic rotations, underscores the distinct ergonomic challenges faced by workers in different operational contexts. This divergence in kinematic behaviour, particularly the notable differences in the range of motion (ROM) and the predominance of higher maximum speeds on the right side for all upper extremity movements in the AWE group, aligns with the working hypotheses that posited significant disparities in movement patterns across different workstation types due to the varying nature of tasks performed. The findings resonate with previous studies [48; 49; 50; 51], highlighting the impact of occupational activities on workers' biomechanical and physiological profiles, suggesting that the specific demands of machining and assembly tasks contribute to distinct ergonomic risk profiles. For instance, the elevated activity levels in the lumbar and thoracic regions among MWE participants mirror the intensive physical demands and dynamic movements characteristic of machining operations, which may predispose workers to a higher risk of musculoskeletal disorders in these areas. Conversely, the AWE group's significant right-side bias in upper extremity movements reflects the repetitive, unidirectional nature of assembly tasks, potentially exacerbating the risk of overuse injuries on the dominant side. Our results also present an intriguing narrative on the dynamics of workplace movements in the context of the acceleration of movements. The observed linear accelerations across upper extremity and central body segments do not exceed 0.33 m/s\({}^{2}\) in workplace activities, even in more dynamic roles, and produce accelerations significantly lower than gravitational acceleration. This finding suggests that most workplace movements are of low intensity but may vary considerably across studied job roles. The more dynamic movements, as evidenced by notably higher accelerations (i.e., observed in the machining group), support the notion that manual work entails more vigorous physical activity than assembly employees. This distinction is crucial for ergonomic interventions, highlighting the need for tailored solutions that address the specific physical demands of different types of work. The unexpected finding of the right side being less dynamic contradicts previous reports, suggesting a possible shift in work practices or a reflection of the specific demographics of our study groups. The implications of these results extend beyond the immediate context of workplace ergonomics, offering a broader perspective on the relationship among work conditions, physical health, and well-being. They underscore the importance of comprehensive ergonomic assessments and interventions that consider work-related health's physical and mental aspects. This study's findings also highlight the potential benefits of promoting symmetrical movements and reducing the reliance on repetitive, asymmetrical tasks.