Cargando…

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

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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Schwartz, Mathilde, Theurel, Jean, Desbrosses, Kévin
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8345799/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34360352
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18158062
_version_ 1783734716485074944
author Schwartz, Mathilde
Theurel, Jean
Desbrosses, Kévin
author_facet Schwartz, Mathilde
Theurel, Jean
Desbrosses, Kévin
author_sort Schwartz, Mathilde
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8345799
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-83457992021-08-07 Effectiveness of Soft versus Rigid Back-Support Exoskeletons during a Lifting Task Schwartz, Mathilde Theurel, Jean Desbrosses, Kévin Int J Environ Res Public Health Article 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. MDPI 2021-07-29 /pmc/articles/PMC8345799/ /pubmed/34360352 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18158062 Text en © 2021 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Schwartz, Mathilde
Theurel, Jean
Desbrosses, Kévin
Effectiveness of Soft versus Rigid Back-Support Exoskeletons during a Lifting Task
title Effectiveness of Soft versus Rigid Back-Support Exoskeletons during a Lifting Task
title_full Effectiveness of Soft versus Rigid Back-Support Exoskeletons during a Lifting Task
title_fullStr Effectiveness of Soft versus Rigid Back-Support Exoskeletons during a Lifting Task
title_full_unstemmed Effectiveness of Soft versus Rigid Back-Support Exoskeletons during a Lifting Task
title_short Effectiveness of Soft versus Rigid Back-Support Exoskeletons during a Lifting Task
title_sort effectiveness of soft versus rigid back-support exoskeletons during a lifting task
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8345799/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34360352
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18158062
work_keys_str_mv AT schwartzmathilde effectivenessofsoftversusrigidbacksupportexoskeletonsduringaliftingtask
AT theureljean effectivenessofsoftversusrigidbacksupportexoskeletonsduringaliftingtask
AT desbrosseskevin effectivenessofsoftversusrigidbacksupportexoskeletonsduringaliftingtask