Evaluate the efficacy of a virtual reality (VR)-based approach for elucidating the benefits and limitations of occupational exoskeletons (EXO).
Background
There is a general lack of awareness of the potential benefits and limitations of EXO among potential users. To address this, we developed and evaluated a VR-module that enables users to perform virtual manual material handling tasks and learn about the potential biomechanical impacts of using an EXO.
Method
Twenty participants experienced three types of informational exposures to a back-support EXO when completing various lifting tasks: information-based, VR-based, and hands-on experience. After each trial in each exposure, perceived usefulness of EXO was obtained.
Results
Compared to the information-based exposure, significantly more variance in EXO usefulness was explained by task factors in the VR condition, for all lifting conditions. Progressing (or transitioning) from VR to hands-on experience led to a slight increase in the explained variance for some task conditions. Decision tree analysis revealed that the key factors affecting perceived EXO usefulness in the VR condition were users’ prior technology perceptions, the baseline risk of tasks, and risk reduced by the EXO.
Conclusion
The VR-based exposure effectively highlighted the task-specific benefits of EXO use and thus accounted for more variance in perceived usefulness than a baseline information session.
Application
Our findings suggest that a VR-based approach may be effective in enhancing user understanding of the benefits and limitations of EXOs. This may potentially aid organizations in developing better training programs and personalized interventions to improve EXO acceptance in workplaces.
AdamiP.RodriguesP. B.WoodsP. J.Becerik-GerberB.SoibelmanL.Copur-GencturkY.LucasG. (2021). Effectiveness of VR-based training on improving construction workers’ knowledge, skills, and safety behavior in robotic teleoperation. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 50(2009), Article 101431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2021.101431
2.
AlemiM. M.MadineiS.KimS.SrinivasanD.NussbaumM. A. (2020). Effects of two passive back-support exoskeletons on muscle activity, energy expenditure, and subjective assessments during repetitive lifting. Human Factors, 62(3), Article 0018720819897669. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720819897669
3.
AljaafrehA.Al-HujranO.Al-AniA.Al-DebeiM. M.Al-DmourN. (2021). Investigating the role of online initial trust in explaining the adoption intention of internet banking services. International Journal of Business Information Systems, 36(4), 474–505. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijbis.2021.113971
4.
ASTM F3323-20. (2020). Standard terminology for exoskeletons and exosuits. ASTM International.
5.
BaltruschS.Van DieënJ.Van BennekomC.HoudijkH. (2018). The effect of a passive trunk exoskeleton on functional performance in healthy individuals. Applied Ergonomics, 72(4), 94–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2018.04.007
6.
BanksJ. J.QuirkD. A.ChungJ.CherinJ. M.WalshC. J.AndersonD. E. (2024). The effect of a soft active back support exosuit on trunk motion and thoracolumbar spine loading during squat and stoop lifts. Ergonomics (London), 68(2), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2024.2320355
7.
BlancoA.CatalanJ. M.MartinezD.Garcia-PerezJ. V.Garcia-AracilN. (2022). The effect of an active upper-limb exoskeleton on metabolic parameters and muscle activity during a repetitive industrial task. IEEE Access, 10(1), 16479–16488. https://doi.org/10.1109/access.2022.3150104
8.
BongersJ.BergmansM. (2024). The effect of workload and work stress on health status and the moderating effect of occupational status and gender among Dutch migrant workers.
9.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2021). Injuries, illnesses, and fatalities. https://www.bls.gov/iif/
10.
CreaS.BeckerleP.De LoozeM.De PauwK.GraziL.KermavnarT.MasoodJ.O’SullivanL. W.PacificoI.Rodriguez-GuerreroC.VitielloN.Ristić-DurrantD.VenemanJ. (2021). Occupational exoskeletons: A roadmap toward large-scale adoption. Methodology and challenges of bringing exoskeletons to workplaces. Wearable Technologies, 2(1), Article e11. https://doi.org/10.1017/wtc.2021.11
11.
ElpramaS. A.VanderborghtB.JacobsA. (2022). An industrial exoskeleton user acceptance framework based on a literature review of empirical studies. Applied Ergonomics, 100(1), Article 103615. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2021.103615
12.
GiustettoA.Dos AnjosV. F.GalloF.MonferinoR.CeroneG. L.Di PardoM.GazzoniM.Micheletti CremascoM. (2021). Investigating the effect of a passive trunk exoskeleton on local discomfort, perceived effort and spatial distribution of back muscles activity. Ergonomics (London), 64(11), 1379–1392. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2021.1928297
13.
GolabchiA.ChaoA.TavakoliM. (2022). A systematic review of industrial exoskeletons for injury prevention: Efficacy evaluation metrics, target tasks, and supported body postures. Sensors, 22(7), 2714. https://doi.org/10.3390/s22072714
14.
GrahamR. B.AgnewM. J.StevensonJ. M. (2009). Effectiveness of an on-body lifting aid at reducing low back physical demands during an automotive assembly task: Assessment of EMG response and user acceptability. Applied Ergonomics, 40(5), 936–942. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2009.01.006
15.
HartwichF.WitzlackC.BeggiatoM.KremsJ. F. (2019). The first impression counts–A combined driving simulator and test track study on the development of trust and acceptance of highly automated driving. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 65(1), 522–535. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2018.05.012
16.
HenselR.KeilM. (2019). Subjective evaluation of a passive industrial exoskeleton for lower-back support: A field study in the automotive sector. IISE Transactions on Occupational Ergonomics and Human Factors, 7(3-4), 213–221. https://doi.org/10.1080/24725838.2019.1573770
17.
HothornT.HornikK.ZeileisA. (2006). Unbiased recursive partitioning: A conditional inference framework. Journal of Computational & Graphical Statistics, 15(3), 651–674. https://doi.org/10.1198/106186006x133933
KalkanÖ. K.KarabulutŞ.HökeG. (2021). Effect of virtual reality-based training on complex industrial assembly task performance. Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, 46(12), 12697–12708. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13369-021-06138-w
20.
KarvouniariA.MichalosG.DimitropoulosN.MakrisS. (2018). An approach for exoskeleton integration in manufacturing lines using Virtual Reality techniques. Procedia CIRP, 78(5), 103–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2018.08.315
21.
KermavnarT.de VriesA. W.de LoozeM. P.O’SullivanL. W. (2021). Effects of industrial back-support exoskeletons on body loading and user experience: An updated systematic review. Ergonomics (London), 64(6), 685–711. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2020.1870162
22.
KimS.NussbaumM. A.SmetsM.RanganathanS. (2021). Effects of an arm-support exoskeleton on perceived work intensity and musculoskeletal discomfort: An 18-month field study in automotive assembly. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 64(11), 905–914. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajim.23282
23.
KongY.-K.KimJ. H.ShimH.-H.ShimJ.-W.ParkS.-S.ChoiK.-H. (2023). Efficacy of passive upper-limb exoskeletons in reducing musculoskeletal load associated with overhead tasks. Applied Ergonomics, 109(1), Article 103965. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2023.103965
24.
KranenborgS. E.GreveC.RenemanM. F.RoossienC. C. (2023). Side-effects and adverse events of a shoulder- and back-support exoskeleton in workers: A systematic review. Applied Ergonomics, 111(1), Article 104042. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2023.104042
25.
LooJ. L. (2009). Acceptance of health services on mobile phones: A study of consumer perceptions. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
26.
MadineiS.KimS.ParkJ.-H.SrinivasanD.NussbaumM. A. (2022). A novel approach to quantify the assistive torque profiles generated by passive back-support exoskeletons. Journal of Biomechanics, 145(1), Article 111363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2022.111363
27.
NilesJ. K.DoraisS.CashwellC.MullenP. R.JensenS. (2024). School counselors’ burnout, hope, and self-efficacy: A sequential regression analysis. Journal of Counseling and Development, 102(4), 472–481. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcad.12530
28.
ParkJ.YeY.DuJ.SrinivasanD. (2024). Virtual reality simulation of exoskeleton-assistance for manual material handling. IEEE Access, 12(1), 105470–105480. https://doi.org/10.1109/access.2024.3434721
29.
RashediE.KimS.NussbaumM. A.AgnewM. J. (2014). Ergonomic evaluation of a wearable assistive device for overhead work. Ergonomics (London), 57(12), 1864–1874. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2014.952682
30.
R Core Team. (2023). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. [Computer software]. https://www.R-project.org/
31.
RettingerM.MüllerN.Holzmann-LittigC.Wijnen-MeijerM.RigollG.SchmadererC. (2021). Vr-based equipment training for health professionals. In Extended abstracts of the 2021 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM.
32.
SchwartzM.DesbrossesK.TheurelJ.MornieuxG. (2022). Using passive or active back-support exoskeletons during a repetitive lifting task: Influence on cardiorespiratory parameters. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 122(12), 2575–2583. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-022-05034-x
33.
SchwerhaD. J.McNamaraN.NussbaumM. A.KimS. (2021). Adoption potential of occupational exoskeletons in diverse enterprises engaged in manufacturing tasks. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 82(5), Article 103103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2021.103103
34.
SmetsM. (2019). A field evaluation of arm-support exoskeletons for overhead work applications in automotive assembly. IISE Transactions on Occupational Ergonomics and Human Factors, 7(3-4), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/24725838.2018.1563010
35.
TuY.ZhuA.SongJ.ZhangX.CaoG. (2022). Design and experimental evaluation of a lower-limb exoskeleton for assisting workers with motorized tuning of squat heights. IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering: A Publication of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, 30(1), 184–193. https://doi.org/10.1109/TNSRE.2022.3143361
36.
YanZ.HanB.DuZ.HuangT.BaiO.PengA. (2021). Development and testing of a wearable passive lower-limb support exoskeleton to support industrial workers. Biocybernetics and Biomedical Engineering, 41(1), 221–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbe.2020.12.010
37.
YeY.ShiY.SrinivasanD.DuJ. (2022). Sensation transfer for immersive exoskeleton motor training: Implications of haptics and viewpoints. Automation in Construction, 141(5), Article 104411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2022.104411
38.
ZeileisA.HothornT.HornikK. (2008). Model-based recursive partitioning. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics, 17(2), 492–514. https://doi.org/10.1198/106186008x319331
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
