pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.26112 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-28 · 💻 cs.HC

Recognition: unknown

Human-Augmented Reality Interaction in Rebar Inspection

Mahsa Sanei , Fernando Moreu
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-07 15:14 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.HC
keywords inspectionsystemmeanparticipantsrebarar-assisteddecreasedflexion
0
0 comments X

The pith

AR-assisted rebar inspection reduced mean trunk flexion by 30.8%, neck flexion by 32.8%, task time by 67.7%, walking distance and hand-path length by over 50%, and NASA TLX workload by 45.6%, with accuracy maintained and SUS usability of 76.1.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

Rebar inspection requires workers to bend awkwardly while mentally mapping 2D drawings to 3D steel assemblies, leading to strain. Researchers ran a lab experiment with 30 people comparing normal inspection to the same task using AR glasses that overlay digital guides. They tracked full-body movements at 100 times per second with motion capture, timed the tasks, measured how far people walked and moved their hands, and asked participants to rate mental and physical effort. The AR version let people stand straighter, finish faster, walk less, and feel less tired, while still spotting spacing errors at the same rate. Participants also gave the system a solid usability score.

Core claim

AR reduced mean trunk flexion by 30.8%, mean neck flexion by 32.8%, and task completion time by 67.7%. Walking distance and hand-path length each decreased by over 50%. NASA Task Load Index scores decreased by 45.6% overall. Inspection accuracy was maintained across conditions.

Load-bearing premise

The lab-based within-subjects setup with motion capture at 100 Hz and controlled conditions accurately reflects real-world construction site performance, worker variability, and long-term use without learning or fatigue confounds.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.26112 by Fernando Moreu, Mahsa Sanei.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Rebar spacing inspection AR menu and hologram of rebar correction view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Motion capture system for inspector’s body tracking view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Trunk and neck flexion angle definition view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Neck and trunk flexion angle vs. time risk zones ISO11226 view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Rebar spacing inspection under two conditions: Traditional and AR-assisted view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Task efficiency comparison in two methods view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Posture analysis; (a) Trunk, and (b) Neck view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Distribution of trunk and neck time spent in three risk zones view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: NASA-TLX score comparison in two different inspection methods view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: SUS score frequency plot 6. Discussion This study provided empirical evidence that AR-assisted rebar inspection substantially reduces ergonomic stressors compared to traditional manual methods. The 30.8% reduction in mean trunk flexion represents biomechanically significant improvements with direct implications for MSD prevention. The reduction in high-risk flexion exposure therefore translates to substan… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Rebar inspection in reinforced concrete construction requires sustained awkward postures and complex mental mapping of two-dimensional drawings onto three-dimensional assemblies. This study evaluated an Augmented Reality (AR)-assisted rebar inspection system deployed on Microsoft HoloLens 2 through a within-subjects experiment with 30 participants. Full-body kinematics were recorded using a motion capture system at 100 Hz while participants performed traditional and AR-assisted spacing inspection. AR reduced mean trunk flexion by 30.8%, mean neck flexion by 32.8%, and task completion time by 67.7%. Walking distance and hand-path length each decreased by over 50%. NASA Task Load Index scores decreased by 45.6% overall, with the largest reduction in physical demand. Inspection accuracy was maintained across conditions. The System Usability Scale yielded a mean score of 76.1 with 83% of participants rating the system acceptable. These results provide convergent objective and subjective evidence that AR-assisted inspection reduces ergonomic risk and perceived workload maintaining inspection quality.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 0 minor

Summary. This paper evaluates an Augmented Reality (AR) system using Microsoft HoloLens 2 for rebar inspection in construction through a within-subjects experiment involving 30 participants. It claims that AR assistance reduces mean trunk flexion by 30.8%, neck flexion by 32.8%, task completion time by 67.7%, walking distance and hand-path length by over 50%, and NASA Task Load Index scores by 45.6%, while maintaining inspection accuracy and achieving a System Usability Scale score of 76.1.

Significance. If the reported improvements hold under scrutiny, the study provides valuable empirical evidence supporting the use of AR to mitigate ergonomic risks and reduce workload in physically demanding construction tasks. The combination of objective kinematic data from 100 Hz motion capture and subjective surveys offers convergent validation, which could inform the development of safer inspection practices in reinforced concrete construction.

major comments (3)
  1. [Results] The abstract and results report specific percentage reductions (e.g., 30.8% for trunk flexion, 67.7% for task time) without providing statistical tests (such as paired t-tests or Wilcoxon tests), p-values, confidence intervals, or measures of variability like standard deviations. This makes it difficult to evaluate the robustness of the central claims regarding ergonomic and efficiency benefits.
  2. [Methods] The within-subjects design with 30 participants is outlined, but details on counterbalancing of condition order, randomization, or statistical handling of potential order effects and learning are absent. Given the large reductions in time and path lengths, this could indicate confounds rather than pure AR benefits.
  3. [Discussion] The paper extrapolates the lab findings to real-world construction sites without addressing limitations such as the controlled environment, absence of fatigue from multi-hour shifts, or variability in worker experience and site conditions (e.g., uneven surfaces). This weakens the applicability of the 30.8% and 32.8% flexion reductions to practical settings.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thoughtful and constructive review of our manuscript. We have carefully considered each comment and provide point-by-point responses below. Where appropriate, we have made revisions to the manuscript to address the concerns raised.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Results] The abstract and results report specific percentage reductions (e.g., 30.8% for trunk flexion, 67.7% for task time) without providing statistical tests (such as paired t-tests or Wilcoxon tests), p-values, confidence intervals, or measures of variability like standard deviations. This makes it difficult to evaluate the robustness of the central claims regarding ergonomic and efficiency benefits.

    Authors: We agree with the referee that the inclusion of statistical analyses is crucial for substantiating our claims. Although the abstract provides summary percentages, the full results section in the manuscript will be updated to include paired statistical tests (specifying whether t-tests or non-parametric alternatives were used based on data distribution), exact p-values, confidence intervals, and standard deviations or standard errors for the reported measures. This revision will allow readers to better assess the statistical significance and variability of the observed improvements. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Methods] The within-subjects design with 30 participants is outlined, but details on counterbalancing of condition order, randomization, or statistical handling of potential order effects and learning are absent. Given the large reductions in time and path lengths, this could indicate confounds rather than pure AR benefits.

    Authors: We appreciate the referee highlighting the need for greater transparency in the experimental procedure. In the revised manuscript, we will provide detailed information on how condition order was counterbalanced across participants using a Latin square design or similar method to minimize order and learning effects. We will also describe any post-hoc analyses conducted to check for carryover effects. These additions should alleviate concerns about potential confounds and confirm that the benefits are attributable to the AR assistance. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Discussion] The paper extrapolates the lab findings to real-world construction sites without addressing limitations such as the controlled environment, absence of fatigue from multi-hour shifts, or variability in worker experience and site conditions (e.g., uneven surfaces). This weakens the applicability of the 30.8% and 32.8% flexion reductions to practical settings.

    Authors: The referee correctly identifies that our Discussion could more explicitly address the generalizability of the findings. We will revise the Discussion to include a dedicated limitations subsection that discusses the laboratory setting, the brief task durations which do not simulate prolonged work shifts, and the participant pool's characteristics relative to professional rebar inspectors. We will also qualify our conclusions to emphasize that while the results demonstrate potential benefits in controlled conditions, further field studies are needed to validate them in actual construction environments with factors like uneven terrain and extended exposure. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: purely empirical comparison of measured outcomes

full rationale

The paper presents a within-subjects lab experiment (n=30) that directly records and compares kinematic, temporal, and subjective metrics between traditional and AR-assisted rebar inspection. All headline percentages (30.8% trunk flexion reduction, 32.8% neck flexion reduction, 67.7% time reduction, >50% path-length reduction, 45.6% NASA-TLX reduction) are simple arithmetic differences between two sets of observed values; none are obtained by fitting parameters, solving equations, or invoking self-referential definitions. No models, predictions, ansatzes, or uniqueness theorems appear. Any self-citations (if present) support background or methods but do not carry the central empirical claims. The derivation chain is therefore empty of circular steps.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Empirical human-subjects study with no mathematical derivations, free parameters, or postulated entities; relies on standard experimental design assumptions.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Within-subjects design has negligible carryover or learning effects between traditional and AR conditions.
    Common assumption in such experiments but not addressed in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5467 in / 1272 out tokens · 55770 ms · 2026-05-07T15:14:54.627026+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    M. A. El-Reedy, Concrete and Steel Construction: Quality Control and Assurance. CRC Press, 2013

    2013

  2. [2]

    Intelligent Inspection Method for Rebar Installation Quality of Reinforced Concrete Slab Based on Point Cloud Processing and Semantic Segmentation,

    R. Wang, J. Zhang, H. Qiu, and J. Sun, “Intelligent Inspection Method for Rebar Installation Quality of Reinforced Concrete Slab Based on Point Cloud Processing and Semantic Segmentation,” Buildings, vol. 14, no. 11, p. 3693, Nov. 2024, doi: 10.3390/buildings14113693

    work page doi:10.3390/buildings14113693 2024

  3. [3]

    Real-time rebar spacing measurement system for quality control in construction,

    U. Woo, M. Lee, T. Lee, H. Choi, S.-M. Kang, and K.-K. Choi, “Real-time rebar spacing measurement system for quality control in construction,” Autom. Constr., vol. 171, p. 106012, Mar. 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2025.106012

    work page doi:10.1016/j.autcon.2025.106012 2025

  4. [4]

    Ergonomic analysis of construction worker’s body postures using wearable mobile sensors,

    N. D. Nath, R. Akhavian, and A. H. Behzadan, “Ergonomic analysis of construction worker’s body postures using wearable mobile sensors,” Appl. Ergon., vol. 62, pp. 107–117, Jul. 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.apergo.2017.02.007

    work page doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2017.02.007 2017

  5. [5]

    Application of Digital Human Modeling in Ergonomic Assessments for Work- Related Musculoskeletal Disorders: A Systematic Review,

    T. Xu and M. Wang, “Application of Digital Human Modeling in Ergonomic Assessments for Work- Related Musculoskeletal Disorders: A Systematic Review,” Int. J. Human–Computer Interact., vol. 0, no. 0, pp. 1–22, Jul. 2025, doi: 10.1080/10447318.2025.2531293

    work page doi:10.1080/10447318.2025.2531293 2025

  6. [6]

    Evaluating Design Review Efficiency and Cognitive Load: 2D vs 3D vs Immersive,

    M. Gustafsson, M. Roupé, M. Johansson, S. Sateei, and O. Disney, “Evaluating Design Review Efficiency and Cognitive Load: 2D vs 3D vs Immersive,” in Construction Applications of Virtual Reality, Volume I, E. Noroozinejad Farsangi, A. H. Rasouli, N. Dawood, and G. Morrison, Eds., Singapore: Springer Nature, 2025, pp. 139–151. doi: 10.1007/978-981-96-8761-9_9

    work page doi:10.1007/978-981-96-8761-9_9 2025

  7. [7]

    Automated monitoring innovations for efficient and safe construction practices,

    M. A. Musarat, A. M. Khan, W. S. Alaloul, N. Blas, and S. Ayub, “Automated monitoring innovations for efficient and safe construction practices,” Results Eng., vol. 22, p. 102057, Jun. 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.rineng.2024.102057

    work page doi:10.1016/j.rineng.2024.102057 2024

  8. [8]

    Ergonomic Optimization of Assembly Workstations: Effects on Productivity and Mental Workload,

    M. Savković et al., “Ergonomic Optimization of Assembly Workstations: Effects on Productivity and Mental Workload,” Safety, vol. 12, no. 1, p. 15, Feb. 2026, doi: 10.3390/safety12010015

    work page doi:10.3390/safety12010015 2026

  9. [9]

    Enhancing Construction Workforce Safety through Formulating an Augmented Reality Digital Twin System,

    S. Wu, “Enhancing Construction Workforce Safety through Formulating an Augmented Reality Digital Twin System,” thesis, RMIT University, 2024. doi: 10.25439/rmt.29314004

    work page doi:10.25439/rmt.29314004 2024

  10. [10]

    Mixed reality-information modeling integrated workflow and application for building construction progress monitoring,

    F. Arif and W. A. Khan, “Mixed reality-information modeling integrated workflow and application for building construction progress monitoring,” Sustain. Resilient Infrastruct., vol. 0, no. 0, pp. 1–20, Dec. 2025, doi: 10.1080/23789689.2025.2607768

    work page doi:10.1080/23789689.2025.2607768 2025

  11. [11]

    Transformative Impact of Mixed Reality on the Construction Industry by Enhancing Visualization, Collaboration, and Efficiency,

    M. Z. Iqbal, “Transformative Impact of Mixed Reality on the Construction Industry by Enhancing Visualization, Collaboration, and Efficiency,” Jan. 10, 2025, Social Science Research Network, Rochester, NY: 5364922. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.5364922

    work page doi:10.2139/ssrn.5364922 2025

  12. [12]

    Real-Time Structural Inspection Using Augmented Reality,

    J. Peplinski, P. Singh, and A. Sadhu, “Real-Time Structural Inspection Using Augmented Reality,” in Proceedings of the Canadian Society of Civil Engineering Annual Conference 2022, R. Gupta, M. Sun, S. Brzev, M. S. Alam, K. T. W. Ng, J. Li, A. El Damatty, and C. Lim, Eds., Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland, 2023, pp. 1045–1057. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-34159-5_71

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-031-34159-5_71 2022

  13. [13]

    Indoor 3D Reconstruction of Buildings via Azure Kinect RGB-D Camera,

    C. Delasse, H. Lafkiri, R. Hajji, I. Rached, and T. Landes, “Indoor 3D Reconstruction of Buildings via Azure Kinect RGB-D Camera,” Sensors, vol. 22, no. 23, p. 9222, Jan. 2022, doi: 10.3390/s22239222

    work page doi:10.3390/s22239222 2022

  14. [14]

    Integrating azure kinect data into a real-time planned-vs-built comparsion pipeline,

    J. Prohaska, “Integrating azure kinect data into a real-time planned-vs-built comparsion pipeline,” Thesis, Technische Universität Wien, 2024. doi: 10.34726/hss.2024.119303

    work page doi:10.34726/hss.2024.119303 2024

  15. [15]

    A defect management system for reinforced concrete work utilizing BIM, image-matching and augmented reality,

    O.-S. Kwon, C.-S. Park, and C.-R. Lim, “A defect management system for reinforced concrete work utilizing BIM, image-matching and augmented reality,” Autom. Constr., vol. 46, pp. 74–81, Oct. 2014, doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2014.05.005

    work page doi:10.1016/j.autcon.2014.05.005 2014

  16. [16]

    Exploring Virtual Reality in Construction, Visualization and Building Performance Analysis,

    M. Al-Adhami and L. M. and S. Wu, “Exploring Virtual Reality in Construction, Visualization and Building Performance Analysis,” Int. Symp. Autom. Robot. Constr. ISARC Proc., vol. 2018 Proceedings of the 35th ISARC, Berlin, Germany, pp. 969–976, Jul. 2018, doi: 10.22260/ISARC2018/0135

    work page doi:10.22260/isarc2018/0135 2018

  17. [17]

    Assessing Human Factors in Virtual Reality Environments for Industry 5.0: A Comprehensive Review of Factors, Metrics, Techniques, and Future Opportunities,

    O. Escallada, G. Lasa, M. Mazmela, A. Apraiz, N. Osa, and H. Nguyen Ngoc, “Assessing Human Factors in Virtual Reality Environments for Industry 5.0: A Comprehensive Review of Factors, Metrics, Techniques, and Future Opportunities,” Information, vol. 16, no. 1, p. 35, Jan. 2025, doi: 10.3390/info16010035

    work page doi:10.3390/info16010035 2025

  18. [19]

    Integrating Physical and Cognitive Ergonomics: Workload, Performance, and Human–Technology Interaction Across Complex Systems,

    A. H. Hilmi, A. R. A. Hamid, and W. A. R. A. W. Ibrahim, “Integrating Physical and Cognitive Ergonomics: Workload, Performance, and Human–Technology Interaction Across Complex Systems,” Malays. J. Ergon. MJEr, vol. 7, pp. 129–146, Dec. 2025, doi: 10.58915/mjer.v7.2025.2767

    work page doi:10.58915/mjer.v7.2025.2767 2025

  19. [20]

    The Effect of Augmented Reality on Performance, Task Loading, and Situational Awareness in Construction Inspection Tasks,

    O. O. Komolafe et al., “The Effect of Augmented Reality on Performance, Task Loading, and Situational Awareness in Construction Inspection Tasks,” in Proceedings of the 2024 ACM Symposium on Spatial User Interaction, in SUI ’24. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery, Oct. 2024, pp. 1–12. doi: 10.1145/3677386.3682082

    work page doi:10.1145/3677386.3682082 2024

  20. [21]

    Impact of Mobile Augmented Reality System on Cognitive Behavior and Performance during Rebar Inspection Tasks,

    A. Abbas, J. Seo, and M. Kim, “Impact of Mobile Augmented Reality System on Cognitive Behavior and Performance during Rebar Inspection Tasks,” J. Comput. Civ. Eng., vol. 34, no. 6, p. 04020050, Nov. 2020, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)CP.1943-5487.0000931

    work page doi:10.1061/(asce)cp.1943-5487.0000931 2020

  21. [22]

    Prevalence and Associated Factors of Work-Related Musculoskeletal Disorders Symptoms among Construction Workers: A Cross-Sectional Study in South China,

    Y.-C. Lee, X. Hong, and S. S. Man, “Prevalence and Associated Factors of Work-Related Musculoskeletal Disorders Symptoms among Construction Workers: A Cross-Sectional Study in South China,” Int. J. Environ. Res. Public. Health, vol. 20, no. 5, p. 4653, Mar. 2023, doi: 10.3390/ijerph20054653

    work page doi:10.3390/ijerph20054653 2023

  22. [23]

    Automated Kinect-based posture evaluation method for work-related musculoskeletal disorders of construction workers,

    H. Li et al., “Automated Kinect-based posture evaluation method for work-related musculoskeletal disorders of construction workers,” J. Asian Archit. Build. Eng., vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 1731–1743, May 2025, doi: 10.1080/13467581.2024.2357202

    work page doi:10.1080/13467581.2024.2357202 2025

  23. [24]

    Advancing real-time assessment for work-related musculoskeletal disorders in construction using large foundation models,

    W. Chen, X. Wang, D. Gu, and L. Xu, “Advancing real-time assessment for work-related musculoskeletal disorders in construction using large foundation models,” Results Eng., vol. 29, p. 109224, Mar. 2026, doi: 10.1016/j.rineng.2026.109224

    work page doi:10.1016/j.rineng.2026.109224 2026

  24. [25]

    Exploring the Impact of Augmented Reality on Work Performance in a Full- Scale MEP Assembly Task: Study of Industry and Novice Populations,

    R. Chaudhari et al., “Exploring the Impact of Augmented Reality on Work Performance in a Full- Scale MEP Assembly Task: Study of Industry and Novice Populations,” J. Constr. Eng. Manag., vol. 151, no. 12, p. 04025189, Dec. 2025, doi: 10.1061/JCEMD4.COENG-16726

    work page doi:10.1061/jcemd4.coeng-16726 2025

  25. [26]

    The Influence of AR Head-Mounted Displays on Spatial Perception and Worker Response in Construction Training,

    J. W. Withers, “The Influence of AR Head-Mounted Displays on Spatial Perception and Worker Response in Construction Training,” Feb. 2026, Accessed: Feb. 24, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://hdl.handle.net/10919/141230

    2026

  26. [27]

    Augmented Reality in the Construction Industry: Use-Cases, Benefits, Obstacles, and Future Trends,

    H. Nassereddine, A. S. Hanna, D. Veeramani, and W. Lotfallah, “Augmented Reality in the Construction Industry: Use-Cases, Benefits, Obstacles, and Future Trends,” Front. Built Environ., vol. 8, Apr. 2022, doi: 10.3389/fbuil.2022.730094

    work page doi:10.3389/fbuil.2022.730094 2022

  27. [28]

    Rebar inspection integrating augmented reality and laser scanning,

    H.-L. Chi, M.-K. Kim, K.-Z. Liu, J. P. P. Thedja, J. Seo, and D.-E. Lee, “Rebar inspection integrating augmented reality and laser scanning,” Autom. Constr., vol. 136, p. 104183, Apr. 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2022.104183

    work page doi:10.1016/j.autcon.2022.104183 2022

  28. [29]

    Augmented Reality to Enable Users to Identify Deviations for Model Reconciliation,

    J. Chalhoub, S. K. Ayer, and K. H. McCord, “Augmented Reality to Enable Users to Identify Deviations for Model Reconciliation,” Buildings, vol. 11, no. 2, p. 77, Feb. 2021, doi: 10.3390/buildings11020077

    work page doi:10.3390/buildings11020077 2021

  29. [30]

    Mixed Reality-based MEP construction progress monitoring: Evaluation of methods for mesh-to-mesh comparison,

    B. Tao, F. Bosché, and J. Li, “Mixed Reality-based MEP construction progress monitoring: Evaluation of methods for mesh-to-mesh comparison,” Autom. Constr., vol. 168, p. 105852, Dec. 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2024.105852

    work page doi:10.1016/j.autcon.2024.105852 2024

  30. [31]

    Integrating Augmented Reality with Building Information Modeling: Onsite construction process controlling for liquefied natural gas industry,

    X. Wang, M. Truijens, L. Hou, Y. Wang, and Y. Zhou, “Integrating Augmented Reality with Building Information Modeling: Onsite construction process controlling for liquefied natural gas industry,” Autom. Constr., vol. 40, pp. 96–105, Apr. 2014, doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2013.12.003

    work page doi:10.1016/j.autcon.2013.12.003 2014

  31. [32]

    The Identification, Development, and Evaluation of BIM-ARDM: A BIM-Based AR Defect Management System for Construction Inspections,

    K. W. May et al., “The Identification, Development, and Evaluation of BIM-ARDM: A BIM-Based AR Defect Management System for Construction Inspections,” Buildings, vol. 12, no. 2, p. 140, Feb. 2022, doi: 10.3390/buildings12020140

    work page doi:10.3390/buildings12020140 2022

  32. [33]

    Building defect inspection and data management using computer vision, augmented reality, and BIM technology,

    Y. Tan, W. Xu, P. Chen, and S. Zhang, “Building defect inspection and data management using computer vision, augmented reality, and BIM technology,” Autom. Constr., vol. 160, p. 105318, Apr. 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2024.105318

    work page doi:10.1016/j.autcon.2024.105318 2024

  33. [34]

    A Web-Based BIM–AR Quality Management System for Structural Elements,

    M. Mirshokraei, C. I. De Gaetani, and F. Migliaccio, “A Web-Based BIM–AR Quality Management System for Structural Elements,” Appl. Sci., vol. 9, no. 19, p. 3984, Jan. 2019, doi: 10.3390/app9193984

    work page doi:10.3390/app9193984 2019

  34. [35]

    Employer-Reported Workplace Injuries and Illnesses,

    “Employer-Reported Workplace Injuries and Illnesses,” Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2023. Accessed: Feb. 25, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/osh.htm

    2023

  35. [36]

    The prevalence of musculoskeletal symptoms in the construction industry: a systematic review and meta-analysis,

    W. Umer, M. F. Antwi-Afari, H. Li, G. P. Y. Szeto, and A. Y. L. Wong, “The prevalence of musculoskeletal symptoms in the construction industry: a systematic review and meta-analysis,” Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health, vol. 91, no. 2, pp. 125–144, Feb. 2018, doi: 10.1007/s00420-017- 1273-4

    work page doi:10.1007/s00420-017- 2018

  36. [37]

    Anwer, H

    S. Anwer, H. Li, M. F. Antwi-Afari, and A. Y. L. Wong, “Associations between physical or psychosocial risk factors and work-related musculoskeletal disorders in construction workers based on literature in the last 20 years: A systematic review,” Int. J. Ind. Ergon., vol. 83, p. 103113, May 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.ergon.2021.103113

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ergon.2021.103113 2021

  37. [38]

    Identification of Biomechanical Risk Factors for the Development of Lower-Back Disorders during Manual Rebar Tying,

    W. Umer, H. Li, G. P. Y. Szeto, and A. Y. L. Wong, “Identification of Biomechanical Risk Factors for the Development of Lower-Back Disorders during Manual Rebar Tying,” J. Constr. Eng. Manag., vol. 143, no. 1, p. 04016080, Jan. 2017, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001208

    work page doi:10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0001208 2017

  38. [39]

    Low-Cost Ergonomic Intervention for Mitigating Physical and Subjective Discomfort during Manual Rebar Tying,

    W. Umer, H. Li, G. P. Y. Szeto, and A. Y. L. Wong, “Low-Cost Ergonomic Intervention for Mitigating Physical and Subjective Discomfort during Manual Rebar Tying,” J. Constr. Eng. Manag., vol. 143, no. 10, p. 04017075, Oct. 2017, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001383

    work page doi:10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0001383 2017

  39. [40]

    Motion Capture Technologies for Ergonomics: A Systematic Literature Review,

    S. Salisu, N. I. R. Ruhaiyem, T. A. E. Eisa, M. Nasser, F. Saeed, and H. A. Younis, “Motion Capture Technologies for Ergonomics: A Systematic Literature Review,” Diagnostics, vol. 13, no. 15, p. 2593, Jan. 2023, doi: 10.3390/diagnostics13152593

    work page doi:10.3390/diagnostics13152593 2023

  40. [41]

    Real-time ergonomic risk assessment in construction using a co- learning-powered 3D human pose estimation model,

    W. Chen, D. Gu, and J. Ke, “Real-time ergonomic risk assessment in construction using a co- learning-powered 3D human pose estimation model,” Comput.-Aided Civ. Infrastruct. Eng., vol. 39, no. 9, pp. 1337–1353, May 2024, doi: 10.1111/mice.13139

    work page doi:10.1111/mice.13139 2024

  41. [42]

    A real-time posture assessment system based on motion capture data for manual maintenance and assembly processes,

    D. Zhou, C. Chen, Z. Guo, Q. Zhou, D. Song, and A. Hao, “A real-time posture assessment system based on motion capture data for manual maintenance and assembly processes,” Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol., vol. 131, no. 3, pp. 1397–1411, Mar. 2024, doi: 10.1007/s00170-024-13114-9

    work page doi:10.1007/s00170-024-13114-9 2024

  42. [43]

    Wearable IMU-based real-time motion warning system for construction workers’ musculoskeletal disorders prevention,

    X. Yan, H. Li, A. R. Li, and H. Zhang, “Wearable IMU-based real-time motion warning system for construction workers’ musculoskeletal disorders prevention,” Autom. Constr., vol. 74, pp. 2–11, Feb. 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2016.11.007

    work page doi:10.1016/j.autcon.2016.11.007 2017

  43. [44]

    Personalized method for self-management of trunk postural ergonomic hazards in construction rebar ironwork,

    X. Yan, H. Li, H. Zhang, and T. M. Rose, “Personalized method for self-management of trunk postural ergonomic hazards in construction rebar ironwork,” Adv. Eng. Inform., vol. 37, pp. 31–41, Aug. 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.aei.2018.04.013

    work page doi:10.1016/j.aei.2018.04.013 2018

  44. [45]

    Do Head- Mounted Augmented Reality Devices Affect Muscle Activity and Eye Strain of Utility Workers Who Do Procedural Work? Studies of Operators and Manhole Workers,

    R. W. Marklin, A. M. Toll, E. H. Bauman, J. J. Simmins, J. F. LaDisa, and R. Cooper, “Do Head- Mounted Augmented Reality Devices Affect Muscle Activity and Eye Strain of Utility Workers Who Do Procedural Work? Studies of Operators and Manhole Workers,” Hum. Factors, vol. 64, no. 2, pp. 305–323, Mar. 2022, doi: 10.1177/0018720820943710

    work page doi:10.1177/0018720820943710 2022

  45. [46]

    Alterations in Physical Demands During Virtual/Augmented Reality- Based Tasks: A Systematic Review,

    P. M. Kuber and E. Rashedi, “Alterations in Physical Demands During Virtual/Augmented Reality- Based Tasks: A Systematic Review,” Ann. Biomed. Eng., vol. 51, no. 9, pp. 1910–1932, Sep. 2023, doi: 10.1007/s10439-023-03292-0

    work page doi:10.1007/s10439-023-03292-0 1910

  46. [47]

    Hart and Lowell E

    H. G. Sandra and L. Staveland, “Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of Empirical and Theoretical Research,” Adv. Psychol., vol. 52, pp. 139–183, Jan. 1988, doi: 10.1016/S0166-4115(08)62386-9

    work page doi:10.1016/s0166-4115(08)62386-9 1988

  47. [48]

    Evaluation of Trade-Offs in Augmented Reality Head-Mounted Displays for Construction Assembly: Task Performance and Cognitive and Physical Ergonomics,

    Y. Jia, T. Bulbul, and J. L. Gabbard, “Evaluation of Trade-Offs in Augmented Reality Head-Mounted Displays for Construction Assembly: Task Performance and Cognitive and Physical Ergonomics,” J. Archit. Eng., vol. 32, no. 1, p. 04025049, Mar. 2026, doi: 10.1061/JAEIED.AEENG-2120

    work page doi:10.1061/jaeied.aeeng-2120 2026

  48. [49]

    Cognitive ergonomics-based Augmented Reality application for construction performance,

    S. Wu, L. Hou, H. Chen, G. (Kevin) Zhang, Y. Zou, and Q. Tushar, “Cognitive ergonomics-based Augmented Reality application for construction performance,” Autom. Constr., vol. 149, p. 104802, May 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2023.104802

    work page doi:10.1016/j.autcon.2023.104802 2023

  49. [50]

    Augmented reality for industrial quality inspection: An experiment assessing task performance and human factors,

    A. Seeliger, L. Cheng, and T. Netland, “Augmented reality for industrial quality inspection: An experiment assessing task performance and human factors,” Comput. Ind., vol. 151, p. 103985, Oct. 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.compind.2023.103985

    work page doi:10.1016/j.compind.2023.103985 2023

  50. [51]

    SUS: A ‘Quick and Dirty’ Usability Scale,

    john Brooke, “SUS: A ‘Quick and Dirty’ Usability Scale,” in Usability Evaluation In Industry, CRC Press, 1996

    1996

  51. [52]

    Determining What Individual SUS Scores Mean: Adding an Adjective Rating Scale,

    A. Bangor, P. Kortum, and M. James, “Determining What Individual SUS Scores Mean: Adding an Adjective Rating Scale,” J. User Exp., May 2009, Accessed: Feb. 25, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://uxpajournal.org/determining-what-individual-sus-scores-mean-adding-an-adjective-rating- scale/

    2009

  52. [53]

    Vicon Valkyrie | Advanced Motion Capture Cameras,

    “Vicon Valkyrie | Advanced Motion Capture Cameras,” Vicon. Accessed: Feb. 26, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://www.vicon.com/hardware/cameras/valkyrie/

    2026

  53. [54]

    Accessed: Feb

    ISO 11226:2000 - Ergonomics-evaluation of static working postures, Geneva., 2000. Accessed: Feb. 26, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://www.iso.org/standard/25573.html

    2000

  54. [56]

    Rapid Entire Body Assessment (REBA),

    S. Hignett and L. McAtamney, “Rapid Entire Body Assessment (REBA),” Appl. Ergon., vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 201–205, Apr. 2000, doi: 10.1016/S0003-6870(99)00039-3

    work page doi:10.1016/s0003-6870(99)00039-3 2000

  55. [57]

    Vasak, M

    L. McAtamney and E. Nigel Corlett, “RULA: a survey method for the investigation of work-related upper limb disorders,” Appl. Ergon., vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 91–99, Apr. 1993, doi: 10.1016/0003- 6870(93)90080-S

    work page doi:10.1016/0003- 1993

  56. [58]

    Physical risk factors for neck pain,

    G. A. Ariëns, W. van Mechelen, P. M. Bongers, L. M. Bouter, and G. van der Wal, “Physical risk factors for neck pain,” Scand. J. Work. Environ. Health, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 7–19, Feb. 2000, doi: 10.5271/sjweh.504

    work page doi:10.5271/sjweh.504 2000

  57. [59]

    Accessed: Feb

    R2024a - Updates to the MATLAB and Simulink product families. Accessed: Feb. 27, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://www.mathworks.com/products/new_products/release2024a.html

    2026

  58. [60]

    Comparisons of various types of normality tests,

    B. W. Yap and C. H. Sim, “Comparisons of various types of normality tests,” J. Stat. Comput. Simul., vol. 81, no. 12, pp. 2141–2155, Dec. 2011, doi: 10.1080/00949655.2010.520163

    work page doi:10.1080/00949655.2010.520163 2011

  59. [61]

    Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: a practical primer for t-tests and ANOVAs,

    D. Lakens, “Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: a practical primer for t-tests and ANOVAs,” Front. Psychol., vol. 4, Nov. 2013, doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00863

    work page doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00863 2013

  60. [62]

    Exploring the relationship between neck flexion and neck problems in occupational populations: a systematic review of the literature,

    H. Norasi, E. Tetteh, P. Sarker, G. A. Mirka, and M. S. Hallbeck, “Exploring the relationship between neck flexion and neck problems in occupational populations: a systematic review of the literature,” Ergonomics, vol. 65, no. 4, pp. 587–603, Apr. 2022, doi: 10.1080/00140139.2021.1976847

    work page doi:10.1080/00140139.2021.1976847 2022