Literature DB >> 30487110

Influences of different exoskeleton designs and tool mass on physical demands and performance in a simulated overhead drilling task.

Saad Alabdulkarim1, Maury A Nussbaum2.   

Abstract

We compared different passive exoskeletal designs in terms of physical demands (maximum acceptable frequency = MAF, perceived discomfort, and muscular loading) and quality in a simulated overhead drilling task, and the moderating influence of tool mass (∼2 and ∼5 kg). Three distinct designs were used: full-body and upper-body exoskeletons with attached mechanical arms; and an upper-body exoskeleton providing primarily shoulder support. Participants (n = 16, gender-balanced) simulated drilling for 15 min to determine their MAF, then maintained this pace for three additional minutes while the remaining outcome measures were obtained. The full-body/upper-body devices led to the lowest/highest MAF for females and the lowest quality. The shoulder support design reduced peak shoulder muscle loading but did not significantly affect either quality or MAF. Differences between exoskeleton designs were largely consistent across the two tool masses. These results may be helpful to (re)design exoskeletons to help reduce injury risk and improve performance.
Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Exoskeleton; Intervention; Wearable assistive device

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30487110     DOI: 10.1016/j.apergo.2018.08.004

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Appl Ergon        ISSN: 0003-6870            Impact factor:   3.661


  8 in total

Review 1.  Effects of Upper-Limb Exoskeletons Designed for Use in the Working Environment-A Literature Review.

Authors:  Tobias Moeller; Janina Krell-Roesch; Alexander Woll; Thorsten Stein
Journal:  Front Robot AI       Date:  2022-04-29

2.  Model-Based Comparison of Passive and Active Assistance Designs in an Occupational Upper Limb Exoskeleton for Overhead Lifting.

Authors:  Xianlian Zhou; Liying Zheng
Journal:  IISE Trans Occup Ergon Hum Factors       Date:  2021-07-26

3.  Assessing the Involvement of Users During Development of Lower Limb Wearable Robotic Exoskeletons: A Survey Study.

Authors:  Anna L Ármannsdóttir; Philipp Beckerle; Juan C Moreno; Edwin H F van Asseldonk; Maria-Teresa Manrique-Sancho; Antonio J Del-Ama; Jan F Veneman; Kristín Briem
Journal:  Hum Factors       Date:  2020-01-13       Impact factor: 2.888

4.  Development and Investigation of a Wearable Aid for a Load Carriage Task.

Authors:  Saad A Alabdulkarim; Abdulsalam M Farhan; Mohamed Z Ramadan
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2020-01-24       Impact factor: 3.390

5.  Wearable Exoskeletons on the Workplaces: Knowledge, Attitudes and Perspectives of Health and Safety Managers on the implementation of exoskeleton technology in Northern Italy.

Authors:  Matteo Riccò; Silvia Ranzieri; Luigi Vezzosi; Federica Balzarini; Nicola Luigi Bragazzi
Journal:  Acta Biomed       Date:  2022-01-19

6.  Evaluation of two upper-limb exoskeletons during overhead work: influence of exoskeleton design and load on muscular adaptations and balance regulation.

Authors:  K Desbrosses; M Schwartz; J Theurel
Journal:  Eur J Appl Physiol       Date:  2021-06-25       Impact factor: 3.078

7.  Gaussian Mixture Models for Control of Quasi-Passive Spinal Exoskeletons.

Authors:  Marko Jamšek; Tadej Petrič; Jan Babič
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2020-05-09       Impact factor: 3.576

8.  Guidelines for Working Heights of the Lower-Limb Exoskeleton (CEX) Based on Ergonomic Evaluations.

Authors:  Yong-Ku Kong; Chae-Won Park; Min-Uk Cho; Seoung-Yeon Kim; Min-Jung Kim; Dong Jin Hyun; Kihyeon Bae; Jong Kyu Choi; Sang Min Ko; Kyeong-Hee Choi
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2021-05-13       Impact factor: 3.390

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.