Literature DB >> 30929608

The effect of a passive trunk exoskeleton on metabolic costs during lifting and walking.

S J Baltrusch1,2, J H van Dieën2, S M Bruijn2, A S Koopman2, C A M van Bennekom1, H Houdijk1,2.   

Abstract

The objective of this study was to assess how wearing a passive trunk exoskeleton affects metabolic costs, movement strategy and muscle activation during repetitive lifting and walking. We measured energy expenditure, kinematics and muscle activity in 11 healthy men during 5 min of repetitive lifting and 5 min of walking with and without exoskeleton. Wearing the exoskeleton during lifting, metabolic costs decreased as much as 17%. In conjunction, participants tended to move through a smaller range of motion, reducing mechanical work generation. Walking with the exoskeleton, metabolic costs increased up to 17%. Participants walked somewhat slower with shortened steps while abdominal muscle activity slightly increased when wearing the exoskeleton. Wearing an exoskeleton during lifting decreased metabolic costs and hence may reduce the development of fatigue and low back pain risk. During walking metabolic costs increased, stressing the need for a device that allows disengagement of support depending on activities performed. Practitioner summary: Physiological strain is an important risk factor for low back pain. We observed that an exoskeleton reduced metabolic costs during lifting, but had an opposite effect while walking. Therefore, exoskeletons may be of benefit for lifting by decreasing physiological strain but should allow disengagement of support when switching between tasks. Abbreviations: COM: centre of mass; EMG: electromyography; LBP: low back pain; MVC: maximum voluntary isometric contraction; NIOSH: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health; PLAD: personal lift augmentation device; PWS: preferred walking speed without exoskeleton; PWSX: preferred walking speed with exoskeleton; ROM: range of motion; RER: respiratory exchange ratio; V ̇O2max: maximum rate of oxygen consumption.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Assistive device; EMG; low back pain; movement behaviour; oxygen consumption

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30929608     DOI: 10.1080/00140139.2019.1602288

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ergonomics        ISSN: 0014-0139            Impact factor:   2.778


  13 in total

Review 1.  A Systematic Review on Evaluation Strategies for Field Assessment of Upper-Body Industrial Exoskeletons: Current Practices and Future Trends.

Authors:  Pranav Madhav Kuber; Masoud Abdollahi; Mohammad Mehdi Alemi; Ehsan Rashedi
Journal:  Ann Biomed Eng       Date:  2022-08-02       Impact factor: 4.219

Review 2.  Evaluation and Test Methods of Industrial Exoskeletons In Vitro, In Vivo, and In Silico: A Critical Review.

Authors:  Liying Zheng; Brian Lowe; Ashley L Hawke; John Z Wu
Journal:  Crit Rev Biomed Eng       Date:  2021

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

Authors:  M Schwartz; K Desbrosses; J Theurel; G Mornieux
Journal:  Eur J Appl Physiol       Date:  2022-09-08       Impact factor: 3.346

4.  Comparison of Subjective Responses of Low Back Pain Patients and Asymptomatic Controls to Use of Spinal Exoskeleton during Simple Load Lifting Tasks: A Pilot Study.

Authors:  Žiga Kozinc; Jan Babič; Nejc Šarabon
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2020-12-28       Impact factor: 3.390

5.  Applicability of an Active Back-Support Exoskeleton to Carrying Activities.

Authors:  Tommaso Poliero; Maria Lazzaroni; Stefano Toxiri; Christian Di Natali; Darwin G Caldwell; Jesús Ortiz
Journal:  Front Robot AI       Date:  2020-12-09

Review 6.  Towards a Functional Performance Validation Standard for Industrial Low-Back Exoskeletons: State of the Art Review.

Authors:  Mattia Pesenti; Alberto Antonietti; Marta Gandolla; Alessandra Pedrocchi
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2021-01-26       Impact factor: 3.576

7.  Equivalent Weight: Connecting Exoskeleton Effectiveness with Ergonomic Risk during Manual Material Handling.

Authors:  Christian Di Natali; Giorgia Chini; Stefano Toxiri; Luigi Monica; Sara Anastasi; Francesco Draicchio; Darwin G Caldwell; Jesús Ortiz
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2021-03-07       Impact factor: 3.390

8.  Effects of a wearable device and functional wear on spinal alignment and jump performance.

Authors:  Hayato Ikeda; Takayuki Miyamori; Junji Katsuhira; Ryuichi Sawa; Yu Shimasaki; Yuji Takazawa; Masafumi Yoshimura
Journal:  J Exerc Sci Fit       Date:  2020-10-10       Impact factor: 3.103

9.  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

10.  The Effects of Upper-Body Exoskeletons on Human Metabolic Cost and Thermal Response during Work Tasks-A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Simona Del Ferraro; Tiziana Falcone; Alberto Ranavolo; Vincenzo Molinaro
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2020-10-09       Impact factor: 3.390

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.