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

Mathilde Schwartz, Jean Theurel and Kévin Desbrosses
Additional contact information
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
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

IJERPH, 2021, vol. 18, issue 15, 1-12

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.

Keywords: musculoskeletal disorders; workload; wearable assistive device; occupational back-support exoskeleton; EMG; handling task; low back pain (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: I I1 I3 Q Q5 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2021
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (4)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/15/8062/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/15/8062/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:15:p:8062-:d:604623

Access Statistics for this article

IJERPH is currently edited by Ms. Jenna Liu

More articles in IJERPH from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().