Assessing the potential for "undesired" effects of passive back-support exoskeleton use during a simulated manual assembly task: Muscle activity, posture, balance, discomfort, and usability

Evaluating adaptiveness of an active back exosuit for dynamic lifting and maximum range of motion

Back exosuits deliver mechanical assistance to reduce the risk of back injury, however, minimising restriction is critical for adoption. We developed the adaptive impedance controller to minimise restriction while maintaining assistance by modulating impedance based on the user's movement direction and nonlinear sine curves. The objective of this study was to compare active assistance, delivered by a back exosuit via our adaptive impedance controller, to three levels of assistance from passive elastics. Fifteen participants completed five experimental blocks (4 exosuits and 1 no-suit) consisting of a maximum flexion and a constrained lifting task. While a higher stiffness elastic reduced back extensor muscle activity by 13%, it restricted maximum range of motion (RoM) by 13°. The adaptive impedance approach did not restrict RoM while reducing back extensor muscle activity by 15%, when lifting. This study highlights an adaptive impedance approach might improve usability by circumventing the assistance-restriction trade-off inherent to passive approaches.Practitioner summary: This study demonstrates a soft active exosuit that delivers assistance with an adaptive impedance approach can provide reductions in overall back muscle activity without the impacts of restricted range of motion or perception of restriction and discomfort.

Biomechanical Effects of Using a Passive Exoskeleton for the Upper Limb in Industrial Manufacturing Activities: A Pilot Study

This study investigates the biomechanical impact of a passive Arm-Support Exoskeleton (ASE) on workers in wool textile processing. Eight workers, equipped with surface electrodes for electromyography (EMG) recording, performed three industrial tasks, with and without the exoskeleton. All tasks were performed in an upright stance involving repetitive upper limbs actions and overhead work, each presenting different physical demands in terms of cycle duration, load handling and percentage of cycle time with shoulder flexion over 80°. The use of ASE consistently lowered muscle activity in the anterior and medial deltoid compared to the free condition (reduction in signal Root Mean Square (RMS) -21.6% and -13.6%, respectively), while no difference was found for the Erector Spinae Longissimus (ESL) muscle. All workers reported complete satisfaction with the ASE effectiveness as rated on Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology (QUEST), and 62% of the subjects rated the usability score as very high (>80 System Usability Scale (SUS)). The reduction in shoulder flexor muscle activity during the performance of industrial tasks is not correlated to the level of ergonomic risk involved. This preliminary study affirms the potential adoption of ASE as support for repetitive activities in wool textile processing, emphasizing its efficacy in reducing shoulder muscle activity. Positive worker acceptance and intention to use ASE supports its broader adoption as a preventive tool in the occupational sector.

Occupational arm-support and back-support exoskeletons elicit changes in reactive balance after slip-like and trip-like perturbations on a treadmill

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of arm- and back-support exoskeletons on reactive balance after slip-like and trip-like perturbations on a treadmill. Twenty-eight participants used two arm-support exoskeletons and two back-support exoskeletons with support (i.e., assistive joint torque) activated or deactivated. In each exoskeleton condition, as well in as a control without any exoskeleton, participants were exposed to 12 treadmill perturbations during upright standing. The exoskeletons did not significantly increase the probability of a failed recovery after the perturbations compared to wearing no exoskeleton, but did elicit effects on kinematic variables that suggested balance recovery was more challenging. Moreover, reactive balance differed when wearing back-support and arm-support exoskeletons, and when wearing an activated exoskeleton compared to a deactivated exoskeleton. Together, our results suggest these exoskeletons may increase the risk of slip- and trip-induced falls. The potential mechanisms of this increased risk are discussed and include the added mass and/or motion restrictions associated with wearing these exoskeletons. Our results do not support the assistive hip/back extension moment provided by back-support exoskeletons adversely affecting fall risk.

Using a Passive Back Exoskeleton During a Simulated Sorting Task: Influence on Muscle Activity, Posture, and Heart Rate

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate using a back exoskeleton in a simulated sorting task in a static forward bent trunk posture on muscle activity, posture, and heart rate (HR).

BACKGROUND

Potentials of exoskeletons for reducing musculoskeletal demands in work tasks need to be clarified.

METHODS

Thirty-six healthy males performed the sorting task in 40°-forward bent static trunk posture for 90 seconds, in three trunk orientations, with and without exoskeleton. Muscle activity of the erector spinae (ES), biceps femoris (BF), trapezius descendens (TD), rectus abdominis (RA), vastus laterals (VL), and gastrocnemius medialis was recorded using surface electromyography normalized to a submaximal or maximal reference electrical activity (%RVE (reference voluntary electrical activity)/%MVE). Spine and lower limb postures were assessed by gravimetric position sensors, and HR by electrocardiography.

RESULTS

Using the exoskeleton resulted in decreased BF muscle activity [-8.12%RVE], and minor changes in ES [-1.29%MVE], RA [-0.28%RVE], VL [-0.49%RVE], and TD [+1.13%RVE] muscle activity. Hip and knee flexion increased [+8.1°; +6.7°]. Heart rate decreased by 2.1 bpm. Trunk orientation had an influence on BF muscle activity.

CONCLUSION

Using the back exoskeleton in a short sorting task with static trunk posture mainly reduced hip extensor muscle activity and changed lower limb but not spine posture. Implications of using a back exoskeleton for workers' musculoskeletal health need further clarification.

APPLICATION

The detected changes by using the Laevo® illustrate the need for further investigation prior to practical recommendations of using exoskeletons in the field. Investigating various work scenarios in different kind of workers and long-term applications would be important elements.

Exoskeleton Usability Questionnaire: a preliminary evaluation questionnaire for the lower limb industrial exoskeletons

Exoskeleton robots are a promising solution to reduce musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) in different work environments, but a specific usability scale for evaluating them is lacking. This study aimed to develop and verify a preliminary Exoskeleton Usability Questionnaire (EUQ) for the lower limb exoskeletons by creating a draft survey questionnaire from existing questions in prior studies. An experiment was conducted with 20 participants who performed a specific task while wearing three lower limb robots and provided subjective feedback using the developed questionnaire. Data were analysed using exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), resulting in a usability evaluation questionnaire for exoskeleton robots clustered into four main factors: mobility, adjustability, handling and safety. This study's findings are expected to be useful in evaluating the usability of the lower limb exoskeletons in both general production sites and agricultural work, which can aid in reducing the prevalence of lower limb MSDs.Practitioner Summary: This study developed a preliminary subjective usability evaluation questionnaire for exoskeleton robots. The questionnaire is clustered into four main factors: mobility, adjustability, handling and safety. These findings provide a valuable tool for assessing exoskeleton usability, potentially reducing musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) in various work environments.

Effect of trunk flexion angle and time on lumbar and abdominal muscle activity while wearing a passive back-support exosuit device during simple posture-maintenance tasks

Quantifying the trunk flexion angles at which wearable support systems (exoskeletons/exosuits) provide substantial trunk extension moment during posture maintenance tasks (such as those seen in surgical environments) can provide a deeper understanding of this potential intervention strategy. Understanding how time (i.e. adaptation/learning) might impact the reliance on wearable support is also of value. Sixteen participants were asked to maintain specific trunk flexion angles (range 0-60°) with and without an exosuit system while erector spinae and rectus abdominis muscle activity were captured using surface electromyography. The effects of the exosuit showed a statistically significant (p < 0.007) effect on the activity of the erector spinae muscles at 10-60°-an effect that became 'large' (Cohen's d = 0.84) after 20° of trunk flexion. There were no meaningful time-dependent trends in the levels of muscle activation indicating there was no adaptation/learning effect of the exosuit in the task studied.Practitioner summary: This study examined the effectiveness of a back-support exosuit as a function of trunk flexion angle and time of use. The results revealed that the exosuit significantly reduced erector spinae muscle activity beyond 20° of trunk flexion but did not show a meaningful adaption/learning effect.Abbreviations: LBP: low back pain; EMG: electromyography; NEMG: normalized electromyography; IMU: inertial measurement unit; ES: erector spinae; RA: rectus abdominis; MVC: maximum voluntary contraction; FFT: Fast Fourier Transform.

Effect of wearable chair on gait, balance, and discomfort of new users during level walking with anterior loads

INTRODUCTION

Walking with anterior loads is common in industrial scenarios, but as exoskeletons are increasingly used in work environments to alleviate musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs), this new "human-robot" system composed of the human body and exoskeleton may be associated with new risks and harm that warrant further investigation. Therefore, this study will discuss the effect of a wearable chair on the gait, balance, and discomfort of new users with different weights of anterior loads during level walking.

METHOD

Twenty-two healthy subjects (sex balanced) participated in the experiment. Each exposure comprised one of two exoskeleton states (with/without) and four load conditions: No carried load, carrying an empty box (0.3 kg), 5%Body Weight (BW), and 10%BW. The order of exoskeleton states and load conditions was randomly assigned. Using an eight-camera motion capture system to record the entire movement. And the subjective discomfort and perceived balance after each exposure were recorded on an 11-point numeric rating scale, respectively. Using SPSS 26.0 software (IBM Inc., Chicago) to conduct statistical analyses.

RESULTS

Level walking with a wearable chair in different load conditions significantly affected gait parameters (like cadence) and gait balance. The perceived balance decreased with the exoskeleton, consistent with objective results. For subjective discomfort, wearing the exoskeleton significantly impacted global discomfort. Also, it increased the local discomfort of the shoulders, waist, thighs, shanks, and feet/ankles.

CONCLUSIONS

For new users, the risk of losing balance or falling may be increased when wearing an exoskeleton for non-target task behaviors (level walking/anterior load), and caution is recommended when the anterior load exceeds 5% BW.

PRACTICAL APPLICATION

The proposed strategy for assessing human gait, balance, and discomfort in wearable chairs may be applied during the iterative design of the product. These controls will help develop training programs and implementation guidelines for this exoskeleton type.

Modelling for design and evaluation of industrial exoskeletons: A systematic review

Industrial exoskeletons are developed to relieve workers' physical demands in the workplace and to alleviate ergonomic issues associated with work-related musculoskeletal disorders. As a safe and economical alternative to empirical/experimental methods, modelling is considered as a powerful tool for design and evaluation of industrial exoskeletons. This systematic review aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the current literature on the design and evaluation of industrial exoskeletons through modelling. A systematic study was conducted by general keyword searches of five electronic databases over the last two decades (2003-2022). Out of the 701 records initially retrieved, 33 eligible articles were included and analyzed in the final review, presenting a variety of model inputs, model development, and model outputs used in the modelling. This systematic review study revealed that existing modelling methods can evaluate the biomechanical and physiological effects of industrial exoskeletons and provide some design parameters. However, the modelling method is currently unable to cover some of the main evaluation metrics supported by experimental assessments, such as task performance, user experience/discomfort, change in metabolic costs etc. Standard guidelines for model construction and implementation, as well as validation of human-exoskeleton interactions, remain to be established.

Objective and subjective evaluation of a passive low-back exoskeleton during simulated logistics tasks

Musculoskeletal disorders remain the most common work-related health problem in the European Union. The most common work-related musculoskeletal disorder reported by workers is backache, especially in the logistics sector. Thus, this article aims to evaluate the effects of a commercial passive low-back exoskeleton during simulated logistics tasks. Thirty participants were recruited for this study. Typical logistics tasks were simulated in a laboratory environment. Cross-over research design was utilized to assess the effects of the exoskeleton on heart rate, trunk inclination, trunk acceleration, throughput, and perceived exertion. Also, usability and acceptance were obtained using a custom questionnaire. We found mostly non-significant differences. Effects on throughput varied widely between workplaces. Usability ratings were poor and acceptance moderate. The study suggests that a holistic evaluation and implementation approach for industrial exoskeletons is necessary. Further, prior to exoskeleton implementation, workplace adaptation might be required.

Reducing Back Exertion and Improving Confidence of Individuals with Low Back Pain with a Back Exosuit: A Feasibility Study for Use in BACPAC

OBJECTIVE

Low back pain (LBP) is hallmarked by activity limitations, especially for tasks involving bending. Back exosuit technology reduces low back discomfort and improves self-efficacy of individuals with LBP during bending and lifting tasks. However, the biomechanical efficacy of these devices in individuals with LBP is unknown. This study sought to determine biomechanical and perceptual effects of a soft active back exosuit designed to assist individuals with LBP sagittal plane bending. To understand patient-reported usability and use cases for this device.

METHODS

Fifteen individuals with LBP performed two experimental lifting blocks once with and without an exosuit. Trunk biomechanics were measured by muscle activation amplitudes, and whole-body kinematics and kinetics. To evaluate device perception, participants rated task effort, low back discomfort, and their level of concern completing daily activities.

RESULTS

The back exosuit reduced peak back extensor: moments by 9%, and muscle amplitudes by 16% when lifting. There were no changes in abdominal co-activation and small reductions maximum trunk flexion compared to lifting without an exosuit. Participants reported lower task effort, back discomfort, and concern about bending and lifting with an exosuit compared to without.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates a back exosuit not only imparts perceptual benefits of reduced task effort, discomfort, and increased confidence in individuals with LBP but that it achieves these benefits through measurable biomechanical reductions in back extensor effort. The combined effect of these benefits implies back exosuits might be a potential therapeutic aid to augment physical therapy, exercises, or daily activities.

Biomechanical Consequences of Using Passive and Active Back-Support Exoskeletons during Different Manual Handling Tasks

The aim of this study was to assess, for both men and women, the consequences of using different back-support exoskeletons during various manual material tasks (MMH) on the activity of back muscles and trunk kinematics. Fifteen men and fourteen women performed MMH involving a 15 kg load (a static task, a symmetric lifting task, and an asymmetric lifting task). Four exoskeleton conditions were tested: without equipment (CON) and with three exoskeletons passive (P-EXO), and active (A-EXO1 and A-EXO2)). The electromyographic activity of the lower trapezius (TZ), latissimus dorsi (LD), erector spinae (ES), gluteus maximus (GM), and biceps femoris (BF) muscles was recorded. Trunk kinematics were evaluated to provide average thoracic, lumbar, and hip angles. The use of the P-EXO decreased the activity of LD, GM, and BF from -12 to -27% (p < 0.01) compared to CON, mostly during the static task. The A-EXO1 and A-EXO2 reduced the muscle activity of all studied muscles from -7 to -62% (p < 0.01) compared to CON and from -10 to -52% (p < 0.005) compared to the P-EXO, independently of the modalities of the experimental tasks. A statistical interaction between the sex and exoskeleton was only observed in a few rare conditions. Occupational back-support exoskeletons can reduce trunk extensor muscle activity compared to no equipment being used. However, these reductions were modulated by the exoskeleton technology (passive vs. active), design (weight and anthropomorphism), and the modalities of the task performed (static vs. dynamic). Our results also showed that the active exoskeletons could modify the trunk kinematics.

Side-effects and adverse events of a shoulder- and back-support exoskeleton in workers: A systematic review

INTRODUCTION

While the biomechanical effects of exoskeletons are well studied, research about potential side-effects and adverse events are limited. The aim of this systematic review was to provide an overview of the side-effects and adverse events on shoulder- and back-support exoskeletons during work tasks.

METHODS

Four in-field studies and 32 laboratory studies were included in this review, reporting on n = 18 shoulder exoskeletons, n = 9 back exoskeletons, n = 1 full body with a supernumerary arm, and n = 1 combination of shoulder and back exoskeleton.

RESULTS

The most frequent side-effect reported is discomfort (n = 30), followed by a limited usability of the exoskeleton (n = 16). Other identified side-effects and adverse events were changes in muscle activity, mobility, task performance, balance and posture, neurovascular supply, gait parameters and precision. An incorrect fit of the exoskeleton and the decreased degrees of freedom are most often reported as causes of these side-effects. Two studies did not find any side-effects. This review also showed that there are differences in the occurrence of side-effects in gender, age, and physical fitness. Most studies (89%) were conducted in a laboratory setting. Most studies (97%) measured short-term effects only. Psychological and social side-effects or adverse events were not reported. Side-effects and adverse events for active exoskeletons were understudied (n = 4).

CONCLUSION

It was concluded that the evidence for side-effects and adverse events is limited. If available, it mainly consists of reports of mild discomfort and limited usability. Generalisation is limited because studies were conducted in lab settings and measured short term only, and most participants were young male workers.

A Statistical Parametric Mapping Analysis Approach for the Evaluation of a Passive Back Support Exoskeleton on Mechanical Loading During a Simulated Patient Transfer Task

This study assessed the effectiveness of a passive back support exoskeleton during a mechanical loading task. Fifteen healthy participants performed a simulated patient transfer task while wearing the Laevo (version 2.5) passive back support exoskeleton. Collected metrics encompassed L5-S1 joint moments, back and abdominal muscle activity, lower body and back kinematics, center of mass displacement, and movement smoothness. A statistical parametric mapping analysis approach was used to overcome limitations from discretization of continuous data. The exoskeleton reduced L5-S1 joint moments during trunk flexion, but wearing the device restricted L5-S1 joint flexion when flexing the trunk as well as hip and knee extension, preventing participants from standing fully upright. Moreover, wearing the device limited center of mass motion in the caudal direction and increased its motion in the anterior direction. Therefore, wearing the exoskeleton partly reduced lower back moments during the lowering phase of the patient transfer task, but there were some undesired effects such as altered joint kinematics and center of mass displacement. Statistical parametric mapping analysis was useful in determining the benefits and hindrances produced by wearing the exoskeleton while performing the simulated patient transfer task and should be utilized in further studies to inform design and appropriate usage.

Biomechanical assessment of a passive back-support exoskeleton during repetitive lifting and carrying: Muscle activity, kinematics, and physical capacity

INTRODUCTION

Most people have experienced low back pain (LBP) more or less in their lifetime. Heavier load weight could increase the risk of LBP, especially in repetitive lifting and carrying tasks. The risk could also increase with the frequency of lifting. This study aims to investigate the effects of a passive back-support exoskeleton (PBSE) on trunk muscle activation, kinematics, and physical capacity in a repetitive lifting task and a carrying task in consideration of load weights in a laboratory setting.

RESULTS

Results showed that using the PBSE, the activities of the thoracic erector spinae and lumbar erector spinae muscles were reduced significantly by nearly 7% MVC and 3% MVC in the repetitive lifting task and the carrying task, respectively. There was no significant effect of the PBSE on the spine kinematics and physical capacity.

PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS

This study supports the use of the PBSE to reduce trunk muscle activity in repetitive lifting and carrying tasks.

Industrial exoskeletons from bench to field: Human-machine interface and user experience in occupational settings and tasks

Objective

Work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WRMSDs) are considered nowadays the most serious issue in the Occupational Health and Safety field and industrial exoskeletons appear to be a new approach to addressing this medical burden. A systematic review has been carried out to analyze the real-life data of the application of exoskeletons in work settings considering the subjective responses of workers.

Methods

The review was registered on PROSPERO. The literature search and its report have been performed following the PRISMA guidelines. A comprehensive literature search was performed in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Scopus.

Results

Twenty-four original studies were included in the literature review; 42% of the papers retrieved included automobilist industry workers, 17% of the studies evaluated the use of exoskeletons in logistic facilities, and 17% of articles involved healthcare. The remaining six papers recruited farmers, plasterers, wasting collectors, construction workers, and other workmen. All the papers selected tested the use of passive exoskeletons, supporting upper arms or back. Usability, perceived comfort, perceived exertion and fatigue, acceptability and intention to use, occupational safety and health, and job performance and productivity were the main topic analyzed.

Conclusion

Exoskeletons are not a fix-all technology, neither for workers nor for job tasks; they tend to show more of their potential in static activities, while in dynamic tasks, they can obstacle regular job performance. Comfort and easiness of use are the key factors influencing the user's experience. More research is needed to determine the most effective and safe ways to implement exoskeleton use in occupational settings.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=275728, identifier CRD42021275728.

Using passive or active back-support exoskeletons during a repetitive lifting task: influence on cardiorespiratory parameters

The objective of this laboratory study was to assess the cardiorespiratory consequences related to the use of different back-support exoskeletons during a repetitive lifting task. Fourteen women and thirteen men performed a dynamic stoop lifting task involving full flexion/extension of the trunk in the sagittal plane. This task was repeated for 5 min with a 10 kg load to handle. Four conditions were tested: with a passive exoskeleton (P-EXO), with two active exoskeletons (A-EXO1 and A-EXO2), as well as without exoskeleton (FREE). The oxygen consumption rate and cardiac costs were measured continuously. Results showed a significantly lower (p < 0.05) oxygen consumption rate for all exoskeletons as compared to FREE (12.6 ± 2.2 ml/kg/min). The values were also significantly lower (p < 0.001) for A-EXO1 (9.1 ± 1.8 ml/kg/min) compared to A-EXO2 (11.0 ± 1.8 ml/kg/min) and P-EXO (11.8 ± 2.4 ml/kg/min). Compared to FREE (59.7 ± 12.9 bpm), the cardiac cost was significantly reduced (p < 0.001) only for A-EXO1 (45.1 ± 11.5 bpm). Several factors can explain these differences on the cardiorespiratory parameters observed between exoskeletons: the technology used (passive vs active), the torque provided by the assistive device, the weight of the system, but also the level of anthropomorphism (related to the number of joints used by the exoskeleton). Our results also highlighted the lack of interaction between the exoskeleton and sex. Thereby, the three back-support exoskeletons tested appeared to reduce the overall physical workload associated with a repetitive lifting task both for men and women.

Effects of a Passive Back-Support Exoskeleton on Knee Joint Loading during Simulated Static Sorting and Dynamic Lifting Tasks

Due to the load shifting mechanism of many back-support exoskeletons (BSEs), this study evaluated possible side effects of using a BSE on knee joint loading. Twenty-nine subjects (25.9 (±4.4) years, 179.0 (±6.5) cm; 73.6 (±9.4) kg) performed simulated static sorting and dynamic lifting tasks, including stoop and squat styles and different trunk rotation postures. Ground reaction force, body posture and the force between the chest and the BSE's contact interface were recorded using a force plate, two-dimensional gravimetric position sensors, and a built-in force sensor of the BSE, respectively. Using these parameters and the subject's anthropometry, median and 90th percentile horizontal (HOR₅₀, HOR₉₀) and vertical (VERT₅₀, VERT₉₀) tibiofemoral forces were calculated via a self-developed inverse quasi-static biomechanical model. BSE use had a variable effect on HOR₅₀ dependent on the working task and body posture. Generally, VERT₅₀ increased without significant interaction effects with posture or task. HOR₉₀ and VERT₉₀ were not affected by using the BSE. In conclusion, utilizing the investigated exoskeleton is likely to induce side effects in terms of changed knee joint loading. This may depend on the applied working task and the user's body posture. The role of these changes in the context of a negative contribution to work-related cumulative knee exposures should be addressed by future research.

A Systematic Review of Industrial Exoskeletons for Injury Prevention: Efficacy Evaluation Metrics, Target Tasks, and Supported Body Postures

Industrial workplaces expose workers to a high risk of injuries such as Work-related Musculoskeletal Disorders (WMSDs). Exoskeletons are wearable robotic technologies that can be used to reduce the loads exerted on the body's joints and reduce the occurrence of WMSDs. However, current studies show that the deployment of industrial exoskeletons is still limited, and widespread adoption depends on different factors, including efficacy evaluation metrics, target tasks, and supported body postures. Given that exoskeletons are not yet adopted to their full potential, we propose a review based on these three evaluation dimensions that guides researchers and practitioners in properly evaluating and selecting exoskeletons and using them effectively in workplaces. Specifically, evaluating an exoskeleton needs to incorporate: (1) efficacy evaluation metrics based on both subjective (e.g., user perception) and objective (e.g., physiological measurements from sensors) measures, (2) target tasks (e.g., manual material handling and the use of tools), and (3) the body postures adopted (e.g., squatting and stooping). This framework is meant to guide the implementation and assessment of exoskeletons and provide recommendations addressing potential challenges in the adoption of industrial exoskeletons. The ultimate goal is to use the framework to enhance the acceptance and adoption of exoskeletons and to minimize future WMSDs in industrial workplaces.

Methodologies for evaluating exoskeletons with industrial applications

Industrial exoskeletons are globally developed, explored, and increasingly implemented in industrial workplaces. Multiple technical, physical, and psychological aspects should be assessed prior to their daily application in various occupational environments. The methodology for evaluating these aspects is not standardised and differs in terms of focussed research objectives, used types of analyses, applied testing procedures, and use cases. The aim of this paper is to provide a matrix comparing the prevalence of different types of analyses combined with their respective research objective(s). A systematic review in the database 'Web of Science' identified 74 studies, mainly in laboratory settings, with a focus on short-term effects as well as with male-dominated samples being low representative for industrial workforces. The conducted evaluation methodologies are further discussed and compared in terms of testing procedure, sample, and research objectives. Finally, relevant aspects for prospectively evaluating industrial exoskeletons in a more harmonised and comprehensive way are suggested. Practitioner summary: Industrial exoskeletons are still inconsistently and insufficiently evaluated in scientific studies, which might hamper the comparability of systems, threaten the human health, and block an iterative system optimisation. Thus, a comprehensive evaluation methodology is needed with harmonised and multicriteria types of analyses.

An ergonomic assessment tool for evaluating the effect of back exoskeletons on injury risk

Low back disorders (LBDs) are a leading injury in the workplace. Back exoskeletons (exos) are wearable assist devices that complement traditional ergonomic controls and reduce LBD risks by alleviating musculoskeletal overexertion. However, there are currently no ergonomic assessment tools to evaluate risk for workers wearing back exos. Exo-LiFFT, an extension of the Lifting Fatigue Failure Tool, is introduced as a means to unify the etiology of LBDs with the biomechanical function of exos. We present multiple examples demonstrating how Exo-LiFFT can assess or predict the effect of exos on LBD risk without costly, time-consuming electromyography studies. For instance, using simulated and real-world material handling data we show an exo providing a 30 Nm lumbar moment is projected to reduce cumulative back damage by ∼70% and LBD risk by ∼20%. Exo-LiFFT provides a practical, efficient ergonomic assessment tool to assist safety professionals exploring back exos as part of a comprehensive occupational health program.

Benchmarking occupational exoskeletons: An evidence mapping systematic review

OBJECTIVES

To provide an overview of protocols assessing the effect of occupational exoskeletons on users and to formulate recommendations towards a literature-based assessment framework to benchmark the effect of occupational exoskeletons on the user.

METHODS

PubMed (MEDLINE), Web of Science database and Scopus were searched (March 2, 2021). Studies were included if they investigated the effect of one or more occupational exoskeletons on the user.

RESULTS

In total, 139 eligible studies were identified, encompassing 33, 25 and 18 unique back, shoulder and other exoskeletons, respectively. Device validation was most frequently conducted using controlled tasks while collecting muscle activity and biomechanical data. As the exoskeleton concept matures, tasks became more applied and the experimental design more representative. With that change towards realistic testing environments came a trade-off with experimental control, and user experience data became more valuable.

DISCUSSION

This evidence mapping systematic review reveals that the assessment of occupational exoskeletons is a dynamic process, and provides literature-based assessment recommendations. The homogeneity and repeatability of future exoskeleton assessment experiments will increase following these recommendations. The current review recognises the value of variability in evaluation protocols in order to obtain an overall overview of the effect of exoskeletons on the users, but the presented framework strives to facilitate benchmarking the effect of occupational exoskeletons on the users across this variety of assessment protocols.

Effects of using a whole-body powered exoskeleton during simulated occupational load-handling tasks: A pilot study

Whole-body powered exoskeletons (WB-PEXOs) can be effective in reducing the physical demands of heavy occupational work, yet almost no empirical evidence exists on the effects of WB-PEXO use. This study assessed the effects of WB-PEXO use on back and leg muscle activities during lab-based simulations of load handling tasks. Six participants (4M, 2F) completed two such tasks (load carriage and stationary load transfer), both with and without a WB-PEXO, and with a range of load masses in each task. WB-PEXO use reduced median levels of muscle activity in the back (∼42-53% in thoracic and ∼24-43% in lumbar regions) and legs (∼41-63% in knee flexors and extensors), and mainly when handling loads beyond low-moderate levels (10-15 kg). Overall, using the WB-PEXO also reduced inter-individual variance (smaller SD) in muscle activities. Future work should examine diverse users, focus on finding effective matches between WB-PEXO use and specific tasks, and identify applications in varied work environments.

Effects of an arm-support exoskeleton on perceived work intensity and musculoskeletal discomfort: An 18-month field study in automotive assembly

BACKGROUND

Exoskeleton (EXO) technologies are a promising ergonomic intervention to reduce the risk of work-related musculoskeletal disorders, with efficacy supported by laboratory- and field-based studies. However, there is a lack of field-based evidence on long-term effects of EXO use on physical demands.

METHODS

A longitudinal, controlled research design was used to examine the effects of arm-support exoskeleton (ASE) use on perceived physical demands during overhead work at nine automotive manufacturing facilities. Data were collected at five milestones (baseline and at 1, 6, 12, and 18 months) using questionnaires. Linear mixed models were used to understand the effects of ASE use on perceived work intensity and musculoskeletal discomfort (MSD). Analyses were based on a total of 41 participants in the EXO group and 83 in a control group.

RESULTS

Across facilities, perceived work intensity and MSD scores did not differ significantly between the EXO and control groups. In some facilities, however, neck and shoulder MSD scores in the EXO group decreased over time. Wrist MSD scores in the EXO group in some facilities remained unchanged, while those scores increased in the control group over time. Upper arm and low back MSD scores were comparable between the experimental groups.

CONCLUSION

Longitudinal effects of ASE use on perceived physical demands were not found, though some suggestive results were evident. This lack of consistent findings is discussed, particularly supporting the need for systematic and evidence-based ASE implementation approaches in the field that can guide the optimal selection of a job for ASE use.

Occupational exoskeletons: A roadmap toward large-scale adoption. Methodology and challenges of bringing exoskeletons to workplaces

The large-scale adoption of occupational exoskeletons (OEs) will only happen if clear evidence of effectiveness of the devices is available. Performing product-specific field validation studies would allow the stakeholders and decision-makers (e.g., employers, ergonomists, health, and safety departments) to assess OEs' effectiveness in their specific work contexts and with experienced workers, who could further provide useful insights on practical issues related to exoskeleton daily use. This paper reviews present-day scientific methods for assessing the effectiveness of OEs in laboratory and field studies, and presents the vision of the authors on a roadmap that could lead to large-scale adoption of this technology. The analysis of the state-of-the-art shows methodological differences between laboratory and field studies. While the former are more extensively reported in scientific papers, they exhibit limited generalizability of the findings to real-world scenarios. On the contrary, field studies are limited in sample sizes and frequently focused only on subjective metrics. We propose a roadmap to promote large-scale knowledge-based adoption of OEs. It details that the analysis of the costs and benefits of this technology should be communicated to all stakeholders to facilitate informed decision making, so that each stakeholder can develop their specific role regarding this innovation. Large-scale field studies can help identify and monitor the possible side-effects related to exoskeleton use in real work situations, as well as provide a comprehensive scientific knowledge base to support the revision of ergonomics risk-assessment methods, safety standards and regulations, and the definition of guidelines and practices for the selection and use of OEs.

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

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.

Effects of industrial back-support exoskeletons on body loading and user experience: an updated systematic review

This study is an updated systematic review of papers published in the last 5 years on industrial back-support exoskeletons. The research questions were aimed at addressing the recent findings regarding objective (e.g. body loading, user performance) and subjective evaluations (e.g. user satisfaction), potential side effects, and methodological aspects of usability testing. Thirteen studies of active and twenty of passive exoskeletons were identified. The exoskeletons were tested during lifting and bending tasks, predominantly in laboratory settings and among healthy young men. In general, decreases in participants' back-muscle activity, peak L5/S1 moments and spinal compression forces were reported. User endurance during lifting and static bending improved, but performance declined during tasks that required increased agility. The overall user satisfaction was moderate. Some side effects were observed, including increased abdominal/lower-limb muscle activity and changes in joint angles. A need was identified for further field studies, involving industrial workers, and reflecting actual work situations. Practitioner summary: Due to increased research activity in the field, a systematic review was performed of recent studies on industrial back-support exoskeletons, addressing objective and subjective evaluations, side effects, and methodological aspects of usability testing. The results indicate the efficiency of exoskeletons in back-load reduction and a need for further studies in real work situations. Abbrevaitions: BB: biceps brachii; BF: biceps femoris; CoM: centre of mass; DA: deltoideus anterior; EMG: electromyography; ES: erector spinae; ES-C: erector spinae-cervical; ESI: erector spinae iliocostalis; ESI-L: erector spinae iliocostalis-lumborum; ESL: erector spinae longissimus; ES-L: erector spinae-lumbar; ESL-L: erector spinae longissimus-lumborum; ESL-T: erector spinae longissimus-thoracis; ES-T: erector spinae-thoracic; GM: glutaeus maximus; LBP: low back pain; LD: latissimus dorsi; LPD: local perceived discomfort scale; LPP: local perceived pressure scale; MS: multifidus spinae; MSD: musculoskeletal disorder; M-SFS: modified spinal function sort; NMV: no mean value provided; OA: obliquus abdominis (internus and externus); OEA: obliquus externus abdominis; OIA : obliquus internus abdominis; RA: rectus abdominis; RF: rectus femoris; RoM: range of motion; SUS: system usability scale; T: trapezius (pars Ascendens and Descendens); TA: trapezius pars ascendens; TC: mid-cervical trapezius; TD: trapezius pars descendens; VAS: visual analog scale; VL: vastus lateralis; VM: vastus medialis.

Effects of back-support exoskeleton use on trunk neuromuscular control during repetitive lifting: A dynamical systems analysis

Back-support exoskeletons (BSEs) are a promising ergonomic intervention to mitigate the risk of occupational low back pain. Although growing evidence points to the beneficial effects of BSEs, specifically in reducing low-back physical demands, there is limited understanding of potential unintended consequences of BSE use on neuromuscular control of the trunk during manual material handling (MMH). We quantified the effects of two passive BSEs (BackX™ AC and Laevo™ V2.5) on trunk dynamic stability and movement coordination during a repetitive lifting task. Eighteen participants (gender-balanced) completed four minutes of repetitive lifting in nine different conditions, involving symmetric and asymmetric postures when using the BSEs (along with no BSE as a control condition). Maximum Lyapunov exponents (short-term: λ_max-s; long-term: λ_max-l) and Floquet multipliers (FM_max) were respectively calculated to quantify the local dynamic and orbital stability of thorax and pelvis trajectories. Thorax-pelvis segmental coordination was also quantified using the continuous relative phase. Wearing the Laevo™ significantly increased λ_max-s for the pelvis (by ~ 8%) and FM_max for the thorax and pelvis (by ~ 5-10%). Use of either BSE decreased the in-phase coordination pattern for the thorax-pelvis coupling (by ~ 15%). These results suggest that BSE use can compromise neuromuscular control of the trunk, and caution should thus be used in selecting a suitable BSE for use in a given MMH task. Future work is needed, however, to assess the generalizability of different BSE design approaches in terms of unintended short-term and long-term effects on trunk neuromuscular control.

Effects of passive back-support exoskeletons on physical demands and usability during patient transfer tasks

The objective of this study was to evaluate and compare the effects of three passive back-support exoskeletons (FLx ErgoSkeleton, V22 ErgoSkeleton, and Laevo V2.5) and patient transfer methods on physical demands in the low back and shoulders during patient transfer. Twenty professional caregivers (17 females and 3 males) performed a series of simulated patient transfer tasks between a wheelchair and a bed with three different patient transfer methods including the squat pivot, stand pivot, and scoot with two directions (wheelchair to bed and vice versa). The passive exoskeletons (FLx ErgoSkeleton, V22 ErgoSkeleton, and Laevo V2.5) significantly affected trunk postures (forward flexion and lateral flexion), shoulder postures (flexion and abduction), hand pull forces, muscle activities of erector spinae and middle deltoid (p-values < 0.01). The muscle activities of the erector spinae were significantly lower (up to 11.2%) with the FLx and V22 ErgoSkeletons compared to no exoskeleton condition (p-values < 0.002). However, the trunk and shoulder flexion angles with the passive exoskeleton use were greater (up to 77.3%) than those without the exoskeletons (p-values < 0.03). The biomechanical benefits and usability varied by passive exoskeleton designs (p-values < 0.01). The lower muscle activities of the erector spinae suggest that the back-support exoskeletons may be a viable intervention to reduce the low back strain during patient transfer tasks. More research would be needed to reduce the adverse effects of back-support exoskeletons on the postures such as increased trunk and shoulder flexions during patient handling.