3.8 Article

Exploratory Field Testing of Passive Exoskeletons in Several Manufacturing Environments: Perceived Usability and User Acceptance

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/24725838.2022.2059594

关键词

Assistive device; intervention; technology adoption; field study; work-related musculoskeletal disorders

资金

  1. Ohio Occupational Safety and Health Research Program

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The results of this study suggest that workers are accepting of the use of exoskeletons in diverse manufacturing environments. The main factors influencing the intention to use exoskeletons are perceived comfort, task-technology fit, perceived safety, and perceived usefulness. However, further research is needed to improve comfort, task-technology fit, user acceptance, and to develop effective implementation processes for the sustainable use of exoskeletons.
OCCUPATIONAL APPLICATIONS Results of the current exploratory study suggest that use of an exoskeleton (EXO) has the potential to be accepted by workers as an intervention in diverse manufacturing environments. Also evident were that the major factors contributing to EXO-use-intention are perceived comfort, task-technology fit, perceived safety, and perceived usefulness. A user's perception of perceived usability may be established by using an exoskeleton during actual job tasks, yet some aspects of perceived usability likely require multiple exposures to an EXO for an accurate assessment. Many negative comments regarding EXO use were related to physical constraints (e.g., restricted movements, bulkiness), and to the EXO interface (e.g., straps, cuff designs), suggesting a need for further research on EXO design to minimize discomfort. In practice, there is likely value in having workers use and explore candidate EXOs during their actual job, both to accurately assess the usefulness of an EXO and to find the most effective EXO. TECHNICAL ABSTRACT Background: There lacks an understanding of using an exoskeleton (EXO) in diverse manufacturing environments. Purpose: Goals of this study were to: (1) gather worker feedback on different EXOs after using them during their actual jobs; (2) understand what contributes to EXO-use-intention in manufacturing companies; and (3) develop a decision tree model to explore which task characteristics and user perceptions might aid in determining how to implement an EXO effectively. Methods: A field study was completed in five manufacturing companies in the state of Ohio. Fifteen participants used preferred EXOs selected from among two arm-support and two back-support devices during their regular jobs for <= 30minutes in each of two separate sessions. After using an EXO, participants completed a questionnaire addressing several aspects of usability, comfort, safety, and EXO-use-intention. Open-ended comments on these aspects were coded into emerging themes. A decision tree analysis was performed on participants' responses to the EXO-use-intention question to explore the predictive value of task characteristics, user characteristics, and questionnaire responses. Results: Responses to usability-related questions were rather consistent between the two sessions, yet some responses were more positive in the 2nd session (perceived balance, overall comfort and fit, and range-of-motion). We identified four themes regarding EXO use-utility for work, wearability, working metrics, and ease of using; and negative comments on these themes were largely related to physical constraints from wearing an EXO, and EXO interface. The decision tree analysis suggested that perceived comfort, task-technology fit, perceived safety, and perceived usefulness are each associated with EXO-use-intention. Conclusions: EXO use has the potential to be accepted by workers as an intervention in manufacturing environments. However, further work is needed for enhanced comfort, EXO-task fit, user acceptance, and to develop EXO introduction processes to create best practices for effective implementation and sustainable use of EXOs in practice.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据