4.5 Article

Three passive arm-support exoskeletons have inconsistent effects on muscle activity, posture, and perceived exertion during diverse simulated pseudo-static overhead nutrunning tasks

期刊

APPLIED ERGONOMICS
卷 110, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.apergo.2023.104015

关键词

Exoskeleton; Overhead work; Muscle activity; Posture; Shoulder; Perceived exertion

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Arm-support exoskeletons (ASEs) are an emerging technology that can reduce physical demands during overhead work. However, the effects of different ASE designs during overhead work with diverse task demands are not well understood. A study found that using ASEs reduced shoulder muscle activity, changed working postures, and decreased perceived exertion. However, these effects were task-dependent and varied between different ASE designs. The study emphasizes the importance of considering task demands and ASE design when using ASEs for overhead work.
Arm-support exoskeletons (ASEs) are an emerging technology with the potential to reduce physical demands during diverse tasks, especially overhead work. However, limited information is available about the effects of different ASE designs during overhead work with diverse task demands. Eighteen participants (gender-balanced) performed lab-based simulations of a pseudo-static overhead task. This task was performed in six different conditions (3 work heights x 2 hand force directions), with each of three ASEs and in a control condition (i.e., no ASE). Using ASEs generally reduced the median activity of several shoulder muscles (by-12-60%), changed working postures, and decreased perceived exertion in several body regions. Such effects, though, were often task-dependent and differed between the ASEs. Our results support earlier evidence of the beneficial effects of ASEs for overhead work but emphasize that: 1) these effects depend on the task demands and ASE design and 2) none of the ASE designs tested was clearly superior across the tasks simulated.

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

4.5
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