Upper limb pain, dysfunction, musculoskeletal disorders, and worker absenteeism result from working over-shoulder, making precision tasks, and other occupational control tasks. Researchers have shown that the physical demand is reduced when an exoskeleton is used, but the precision task's productivity and quality depend on the speed of execution.
Objective
Here, the study determined how an over-shoulder precision task and height change affect the upper extremity muscle activation behavior.
Methods
A convenience sample of sixteen participants was employed. A mix of factors intervention (without vs. exoskeleton), wrist load (with (0.5 Kg) vs. without load), and task height (three height levels) were simulated. Surface electromyography, repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests.
Results
Using an exoskeleton of our design for the experiment, we reduced muscle activation between 16% and 31.8% in shoulder muscles. However, the task height and wrist load factors increased muscle activation when they increased. Also, the wrist load factor significantly affected perceived discomfort in the shoulders.
Conclusions
A correlation was found between the right shoulder's RPD, and the right upper trapezius’ mean amplitude affected by increased wrist load. The mental load produced by the precision task was classified as medium, and the performance factor was the most representative.
ChoppJNFischerSLDickersonCR. The impact of work configuration, target angle and hand force direction on upper extremity muscle activity during sub-maximal overhead work. Ergonomics2010; 53: 83–91.
2.
VisserBDe LoozeMPDe GraaffMP,et al.Effect of precision demands and mental pressure on muscle activation and hand forces in computer mouse tasks. Ergonomics2004; 47: 202–217.
3.
VisserBDe LoozeMPVeegerDJ, et al.The effects of precision demands during a low intensity pinching task on muscle activation and load sharing of the fingers. J Electromyogr Kinesiol2003; 13: 149–157.
4.
GräfJMattesKLuedtkeK,et al.Improved neck posture and reduced neck muscle activity when using a novel camera based workstation for manual precision inspection tasks. Appl Ergon2021; 90: 1–6.
5.
Bureau of Labor Statistics USD of L. Type of injury or illness and body parts affected by nonfatal injuries and illnesses in 2014. Vol. 2014, The Economics Daily, 2015.
HaddadJMRyuJHSeamanJM,et al.Time-to-contact measures capture modulations in posture based on the precision demands of a manual task. Gait Posture2010; 32: 592–596.
8.
ChenFCStoffregenTA. Specificity of postural sway to the demands of a precision task at sea. J Exp Psychol Appl2012; 18: 203–212.
9.
BrookhamRLWongJMDickersonCR. Upper limb posture and submaximal hand tasks influence shoulder muscle activity. Int J Ind Ergon2010; 40: 337–344.
10.
BoldermanFWBos-HuizerJJAHoozemansMJM. The effect of arm supports on muscle activity, posture, and discomfort in the neck and shoulder in microscopic dentistry: results of a pilot study. IISE Trans Occup Ergon Hum Factors2017; 5: 92–105.
11.
CapodaglioEM. Participatory ergonomics for the reduction of musculoskeletal exposure of maintenance workers. Int J Occup Saf Ergon2022; 28: 376–386.
12.
GopuraRARCKiguchiKBandaraDSV. A brief review on upper extremity robotic exoskeleton systems. In: 6th International Conference on Industrial and Information Systems [Internet]. 2011, pp.346–351. IEEE.
13.
RaduCCandeaCCandeaG. Towards an assistive system for human: exoskeleton interaction. In: Proceedings of the 9th ACM International Conference on PErvasive Technologies Related to Assistive Environments [Internet], 2016, (PETRA ‘16). New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery, https://doi.org/10.1145/2910674.2910677.
14.
PicchiottiMTWestonEBKnapikGG, et al.Impact of two postural assist exoskeletons on biomechanical loading of the lumbar spine. Appl Ergon2019; 75: 1–7.
15.
MudieKLBoyntonACKarakolisT, et al.Consensus paper on testing and evaluation of military exoskeletons for the dismounted combatant. J Sci Med Sport2018; 21: 1154–1161.
16.
HuysamenKPowerVO’SullivanL. Elongation of the surface of the spine during lifting and lowering, and implications for design of an upper body industrial exoskeleton. Appl Ergon2018; 72: 10–16.
17.
de LoozeMPBoschTKrauseF, et al.Exoskeletons for industrial application and their potential effects on physical work load. Ergonomics2016; 59: 671–681.
18.
RashediEKimSNussbaumMA,et al.Ergonomic evaluation of a wearable assistive device for overhead work. Ergonomics2014; 57(12): 1864–1874.
19.
KimSNussbaumMAMokhlespour EsfahaniMI, et al.Assessing the influence of a passive, upper extremity exoskeletal vest for tasks requiring arm elevation: part II –“Unexpected” effects on shoulder motion, balance, and spine loading. Appl Ergon2018; 70: 315–322.
20.
KimSNussbaumMAMokhlespour EsfahaniMI, et al.Assessing the influence of a passive, upper extremity exoskeletal vest for tasks requiring arm elevation: part I –“Expected” effects on discomfort, shoulder muscle activity, and work task performance. Appl Ergon2018; 70: 323–330.
21.
AlabdulkarimSNussbaumMA. Influences of different exoskeleton designs and tool mass on physical demands and performance in a simulated overhead drilling task. Appl Ergon2019; 74: 55–66.
22.
AlabdulkarimSKimSNussbaumMA. Effects of exoskeleton design and precision requirements on physical demands and quality in a simulated overhead drilling task. Appl Ergon2019; 80: 136–145.
23.
MauricePIvaldiSBabicJ, et al.Objective and subjective effects of a passive exoskeleton on overhead work. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng2020; 28: 152–164.
24.
SchmalzTSchändlingerJSchulerM, et al.Biomechanical and metabolic effectiveness of an industrial exoskeleton for overhead work. Int J Environ Res Public Health2019; 16: 4792.
25.
KimSNussbaumMA. A follow-up study of the effects of an arm support exoskeleton on physical demands and task performance during simulated overhead work. IISE Trans Occup Ergon Hum Factors2019; 7: 163–174.
26.
HyunDJBaeKHKimKJ, et al.A light-weight passive upper arm assistive exoskeleton based on multi-linkage spring-energy dissipation mechanism for overhead tasks. Rob Auton Syst2019; 122: 103309.
27.
PacificoIMolteniFGiovacchiniF, et al.An experimental evaluation of the proto-mate: a novel ergonomic upper-limb exoskeleton to reduce workers’ physical strain. IEEE Robot Autom Mag2020; 27: 54–65.
28.
Van EngelhovenLPoonNKazerooniH, et al.Experimental evaluation of a shoulder-support exoskeleton for overhead work: influences of peak torque amplitude, task, and tool mass. IISE Trans Occup Ergon Hum Factors2019; 7: 250–263.
29.
GilletteJCStephensonML. Electromyographic assessment of a shoulder support exoskeleton during on-site job tasks. IISE Trans Occup Ergon Hum Factors2019; 7: 302–310.
30.
de VriesAWKrauseFde LoozeMP. The effectivity of a passive arm support exoskeleton in reducing muscle activation and perceived exertion during plastering activities. Ergonomics2021; 64: 712–721.
31.
MileradEEricsonMO. Effects of precision and force demands, grip diameter, and arm support during manual work: an electromyographic study. Ergonomics1994; 37: 255–264.
32.
SporrongHPalmerudGKadeforsR,et al.The effect of light manual precision work on shoulder muscles-an EMG analysis. J Electromyogr Kinesiol1998; 8: 177–184.
33.
KongY-KKimJHShimH-H, et al.Efficacy of passive upper-limb exoskeletons in reducing musculoskeletal load associated with overhead tasks. Appl Ergon2023; 109: 103965.
34.
YinPYangLQuS,et al.Effects of a passive upper extremity exoskeleton for overhead tasks. J Electromyogr Kinesiol2020; 55: 102478.
35.
BjörklundENordlöfHDjupsjöbackaM. Discursive constructions of electricians in discussions about musculoskeletal disorders among professionals in the field. In: Australian Association for Research in Education (AARE) Conference 2018 “Education Research Matters: Impact and Engagement”, 2018. https://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:hig:diva-27626
36.
SchmalzTBornmannJSchirrmeisterB, et al.Principle study about the effect of an industrial exoskeleton on overhead work. Orthopädie Tech2019: 35–40.
37.
KrzysztofikMJaroszJMatykiewiczP, et al.A comparison of muscle activity of the dominant and non-dominant side of the body during low versus high loaded bench press exercise performed to muscular failure. J Electromyogr Kinesiol2021; 56: 102513.
38.
BorgG. Ratings of perceived exertion and heart rates during short-term cycle exercise and their use in a new cycling strength test. Int J Sports Med1982; 3: 153–158.
39.
BuniyaAAl-TimemyAHAldooriA,et al.Analysis of different hand and finger grip patterns using surface electromyography and hand dynamometry. Al-Khwarizmi Eng J2020; 16: 14–23.
40.
Al-QaisiSAghazadehF. Electromyography analysis: comparison of maximum voluntary contraction methods for anterior deltoid and trapezius muscles. Procedia Manuf2015; 3: 4578–4583.
41.
MaRZhangLLiG, et al.Grasping force prediction based on sEMG signals. Alexandria Eng J2020; 59: 1135–1147.
42.
CuiWChenXCaoS,et al.Muscle fatigue analysis of the deltoid during three head-related static isometric contraction tasks. Entropy2017; 19: 221.
43.
OjeladeAMorrisWKimS, et al.Three passive arm-support exoskeletons have inconsistent effects on muscle activity, posture, and perceived exertion during diverse simulated pseudo-static overhead nutrunning tasks. Appl Ergon2023; 110: 104015.
44.
TerryBWisnerD. Productive, exoskeleton technology: making workers safer and more. Prof Saf2016; 9: 32–36.
45.
HitchcockWSafronJWieseE,et al.The effect of support level and arm angle on passive arm support exoskeleton perceived weight reduction. Proc Hum Factors Ergon Soc Annu Meet2022; 66: 268–272.
46.
HuysamenKBoschTde LoozeM, et al.Evaluation of a passive exoskeleton for static upper limb activities. Appl Ergon2018; 70: 148–155.
