# Ergonomics Evaluation Using Motion Capture Technology--Literature Review
## 5 Discussion
The authors of this publication agree with the most commonly used RULA method but conclude that there is a need to combine multiple methods for a higher level of comprehensiveness and objectivity in the assessment of the ergonomics of work positions. A percentage comparison of used ergonomic methods is shown in the graph below, see Figure 9.  
During the research, a correlation was found between the ergonomic methods used and the area of their application, so that, in the area of manufacturing and logistics, the most frequently used methods were RULA and REBA. The OWAS method was more frequently used in healthcare and construction and was used in one third of the publications. However, OWAS had the largest representation in manufacturing. Authors often cited multiple ergonomic assessment options or multiple areas in which it could be applied. The final method was NIOSH, which had the greatest representation in the logistics and construction industry, as this method involves load handling. Other methods or other industries appeared in other publications, but their correlation was marginal compared to those listed above. Figure 10 below provides a graphical representation of the correlation between the areas covered by the professional publications and the ergonomic assessment methods mentioned within those publications for that area. Figure 8: Comparison of field publication percentage. Source: own processing. The results indicate that motion capture technology has become an essential tool for ergonomic measurements. It helps with the analysis of demanding and repetitive worker tasks, leading to a reduction in the probability of injuries and musculoskeletal disorders and increasing work performance and productivity. The disadvantages of this technology include the price. Motion capture suits are expensive. For this reason, ergonomics of working positions can usually only be studied in research institutes. However, the positive aspects of the use of the technology dominate, for example: data collection can be carried out in a real environment, there is no need for long preparation times, and the application of sensors is painless and does not hinder the performance of work tasks. In fact, the benefits of this technology, such as: objectivity, automatic data collection, and evaluation, are directly illustrated in articles by [PERSON] et al. (1995), [PERSON] et al. (1996), [PERSON] et al. (1997), and [PERSON] et al. (2003). In addition to general suggestions for improving workplaces, there are also studies that highlight the potential of MoCap technology to solve future problems. [PERSON] and [PERSON] (2000) and [PERSON] et al. (2006) indicate demographic changes, the increasing number of aged workers, and their specific needs. Again, the motion capture tool could help adapt the workplace in ways that meet these needs. The main advantages and disadvantages of using motion capture to assess ergonomics versus using standard methods are summarised in Table 3 below. Figure 10: Graphical representation of the correlation between the ergonomic methods used and the areas in which the assessment is performed. Figure 9: Comparison of used ergonomic methods percentage. Source: own processing. The frequency of emerging publications on the topic of using MoCap to assess ergonomics over the last 12 years (2010-2022) has been influenced by world events. The reduced interest in ergonomics and worker safety in 2010-2013 was a consequence of the economic crisis. The situation was reversed in 2014 by the interest in a sustainable economy and green jobs. The steep drop in 2015 could have been caused by the economic impact of terrorist attacks or the ongoing refugee crisis in Europe. In 2017, the number of publications reached its peak. The high numbers have not subsided in recent years, which have been strongly affected by the worldwide pandemic. Mandatory quarantines led to an increase in internet use and interest in technology.