IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v18y2021i15p8062-d604623.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Effectiveness of Soft versus Rigid Back-Support Exoskeletons during a Lifting Task

Author

Listed:
  • Mathilde Schwartz

    (Working Life Department, French National Research and Safety Institute for the Prevention of Occupational Accidents and Diseases (INRS), 54500 Vandœuvre-les-Nancy, France
    Développement, Adaptation & Handicap (DevAH), University of Lorraine, 54000 Nancy, France)

  • Jean Theurel

    (Working Life Department, French National Research and Safety Institute for the Prevention of Occupational Accidents and Diseases (INRS), 54500 Vandœuvre-les-Nancy, France)

  • Kévin Desbrosses

    (Working Life Department, French National Research and Safety Institute for the Prevention of Occupational Accidents and Diseases (INRS), 54500 Vandœuvre-les-Nancy, France)

Abstract

This study investigated the influence of passive back-support exoskeletons (EXO BK ) design, trunk sagittal inclination (TSI), and gender on the effectiveness of an exoskeleton to limit erector spinae muscle (ES) activation during a sagittal lifting/lowering task. Twenty-nine volunteers performed an experimental dynamic task with two exoskeletons (two different designs: soft (SUIT) and rigid (SKEL)), and without equipment (FREE). The ES activity was analyzed for eight parts of TSI, each corresponding to 25% of the range of motion (lifting: P1 to P4; lowering: P5 to P8). The impact of EXO BK on ES activity depended on the interaction between exoskeleton design and TSI. With SKEL, ES muscle activity significantly increased for P8 (+36.8%) and tended to decrease for P3 (−7.2%, p = 0.06), compared to FREE. SUIT resulted in lower ES muscle activity for P2 (−9.6%), P3 (−8.7%, p = 0.06), and P7 (−11.1%), in comparison with FREE. Gender did not influence the effect of either back-support exoskeletons on ES muscle activity. These results point to the need for particular attention with regard to (1) exoskeleton design (rigid versus soft) and to (2) the range of trunk motion, when selecting an EXO BK . In practice, the choice of a passive back-support exoskeleton, between rigid and soft design, requires an evaluation of human-exoskeleton interaction in real task conditions. The characterization of trunk kinematics and ranges of motion appears essential to identify the benefits and the negative effects to take into account with each exoskeleton design.

Suggested Citation

  • Mathilde Schwartz & Jean Theurel & Kévin Desbrosses, 2021. "Effectiveness of Soft versus Rigid Back-Support Exoskeletons during a Lifting Task," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(15), pages 1-12, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:15:p:8062-:d:604623
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/15/8062/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/15/8062/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ci-Jyun Liang & Marvin H. Cheng, 2023. "Trends in Robotics Research in Occupational Safety and Health: A Scientometric Analysis and Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(10), pages 1-21, May.
    2. Laura J. Elstub & Shimra J. Fine & Karl E. Zelik, 2021. "Exoskeletons and Exosuits Could Benefit from Mode-Switching Body Interfaces That Loosen/Tighten to Improve Thermal Comfort," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(24), pages 1-12, December.
    3. Mathilde Schwartz & Kévin Desbrosses & Jean Theurel & Guillaume Mornieux, 2023. "Biomechanical Consequences of Using Passive and Active Back-Support Exoskeletons during Different Manual Handling Tasks," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(15), pages 1-15, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:15:p:8062-:d:604623. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.