» Articles » PMID: 38486626

Versatile and Non-versatile Occupational Back-support Exoskeletons: A Comparison in Laboratory and Field Studies

Overview
Date 2024 Mar 15
PMID 38486626
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Assistive strategies for occupational back-support exoskeletons have focused, mostly, on lifting tasks. However, in occupational scenarios, it is important to account not only for lifting but also for other activities. This can be done exploiting human activity recognition algorithms that can identify which task the user is performing and trigger the appropriate assistive strategy. We refer to this ability as exoskeleton versatility. To evaluate versatility, we propose to focus both on the ability of the device to reduce muscle activation (efficacy) and on its interaction with the user (dynamic fit). To this end, we performed an experimental study involving healthy subjects replicating the working activities of a manufacturing plant. To compare versatile and non-versatile exoskeletons, our device, XoTrunk, was controlled with two different strategies. Correspondingly, we collected muscle activity, kinematic variables and users' subjective feedbacks. Also, we evaluated the task recognition performance of the device. The results show that XoTrunk is capable of reducing muscle activation by up to in lifting and in carrying. However, the non-versatile control strategy hindered the users' natural gait (e.g., reduction of hip flexion), which could potentially lower the exoskeleton acceptance. Detecting carrying activities and adapting the control strategy, resulted in a more natural gait (e.g., increase of hip flexion). The classifier analyzed in this work, showed promising performance (online accuracy > 91%). Finally, we conducted 9 hours of field testing, involving four users. Initial subjective feedbacks on the exoskeleton versatility, are presented at the end of this work.

Citing Articles

Active back exosuits demonstrate positive usability perceptions that drive intention-to-use in the field among logistic warehouse workers.

Hess A, Jacobs J, Sullivan S, Roberts Williams D, Awad L, Dalton D Appl Ergon. 2024; 122:104400.

PMID: 39388886 PMC: 11608431. DOI: 10.1016/j.apergo.2024.104400.


How Effective Are Forecasting Models in Predicting Effects of Exoskeletons on Fatigue Progression?.

Kuber P, Kulkarni A, Rashedi E Sensors (Basel). 2024; 24(18).

PMID: 39338720 PMC: 11435710. DOI: 10.3390/s24185971.


A versatile knee exoskeleton mitigates quadriceps fatigue in lifting, lowering, and carrying tasks.

Divekar N, Thomas G, Yerva A, Frame H, Gregg R Sci Robot. 2024; 9(94):eadr8282.

PMID: 39292806 PMC: 11507003. DOI: 10.1126/scirobotics.adr8282.


The effect of a movable headrest in shoulder assist device for overhead work.

Ishii C, Hirasawa K Wearable Technol. 2024; 3:e25.

PMID: 38486911 PMC: 10936258. DOI: 10.1017/wtc.2022.22.


Dynamic and Static Assistive Strategies for a Tailored Occupational Back-Support Exoskeleton: Assessment on Real Tasks Carried Out by Railway Workers.

Di Natali C, Poliero T, Fanti V, Sposito M, Caldwell D Bioengineering (Basel). 2024; 11(2).

PMID: 38391658 PMC: 10885892. DOI: 10.3390/bioengineering11020172.


References
1.
Ghasemi A, Zahediasl S . Normality tests for statistical analysis: a guide for non-statisticians. Int J Endocrinol Metab. 2013; 10(2):486-9. PMC: 3693611. DOI: 10.5812/ijem.3505. View

2.
Alemi M, Geissinger J, Simon A, Chang S, Asbeck A . A passive exoskeleton reduces peak and mean EMG during symmetric and asymmetric lifting. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2019; 47:25-34. DOI: 10.1016/j.jelekin.2019.05.003. View

3.
Tucker M, Olivier J, Pagel A, Bleuler H, Bouri M, Lambercy O . Control strategies for active lower extremity prosthetics and orthotics: a review. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2015; 12:1. PMC: 4326520. DOI: 10.1186/1743-0003-12-1. View

4.
Naf M, Koopman A, Baltrusch S, Rodriguez-Guerrero C, Vanderborght B, Lefeber D . Passive Back Support Exoskeleton Improves Range of Motion Using Flexible Beams. Front Robot AI. 2021; 5:72. PMC: 7805753. DOI: 10.3389/frobt.2018.00072. View

5.
Waters T, Putz-Anderson V, Garg A, Fine L . Revised NIOSH equation for the design and evaluation of manual lifting tasks. Ergonomics. 1993; 36(7):749-76. DOI: 10.1080/00140139308967940. View