Effects of upper-limb exoskeleton on muscle activity in tasks requiring arm elevation: Part II – In-field experiments in construction industry settings
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online October 7, 2024
Effects of upper-limb exoskeleton on muscle activity in tasks requiring arm elevation: Part II – In-field experiments in construction industry settings
The body of literature regarding the use of an upper limb exoskeleton during authentic working conditions is sparse.
Objective:
The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of an upper limb exoskeleton in reducing muscle strain during authentic industrial construction work.
Methods:
Fifteen male participants, comprising of roofers, scaffolders, builders, bricklayers, and graders performing overhead work participated in the study. During work without (REF) and with exoskeleton (EXO), muscle activity from 8 muscles, heart rate (HR), metabolic equivalent (MET), and upper arm elevation angles were recorded.
Results:
When using the exoskeleton, a significant reduction of 20.2% in average muscle activity of 8 muscles was found. The largest effect focused on m. deltoideus, where 46.2 and 32.2% reduction occurred in medial and anterior parts of the muscle, respectively. HR and MET were unaffected. Upper arm elevation angles were similar between REF and EXO, indicating equal biomechanical loading.
Conclusions:
This study indicates that exoskeletons show great promise in reducing the potential for musculoskeletal strain during authentic overhead construction work.
ChristensenJO, KnardahlS. Work and neck pain: A prospective study of psychological, social, and mechanical risk factors. Pain. 2010;151(1):162–73
2.
NordanderC, HanssonGÅ, OhlssonK, ArvidssonI, BaloghI, StrömbergU, et al.
Exposure-response relationships for work-related neck and shoulder musculoskeletal disorders –Analyses of pooled uniform data sets. Appl Ergon. 2016;55:70–84.
3.
van RijnRM, HuisstedeBM, KoesBW, BurdorfA. Associations between work-related factors and specific disorders of the shoulder –a systematic review of the literature. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2010;36(3):189–201.
4.
Viikari-JunturaE, MartikainenR, LuukkonenR, MutanenP, TakalaEP, RiihimäkiH. Longitudinal study on work related and individual risk factors affecting radiating neck pain. Occup Environ Med. 2001;58(5):345–52.
5.
PalmP, GuptaN, ForsmanM, SkotteJ, NordquistT, HoltermannA. Exposure to Upper Arm Elevation During Work Compared to Leisure Among 12 Different Occupations Measured with Triaxial Accelerometers. Ann Work Expo Health. 2018;62(6):689–98.
6.
de LoozeMP, BoschaT, KrauseaF, StadlercKS, O’SullivanLW. Exoskeletons for industrial application and their potential effects on physical work load. Ergonomics. 2016;59(5):671–81.
7.
HuysamenK, BoschT, de LoozeM, StadlerKS, GrafE, O’SullivanLW. Evaluation of a passive exoskeleton for static upper limb activities. Appl Ergon. 2018;70:148–55.
8.
YinP, YangL, QuS, WangC. Effects of a passive upper extremity exoskeleton for overhead tasks. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2020;55:102478.
9.
AlabdulkarimS, NussbaumMA. Influences of different exoskeleton designs and tool mass on physical demands and performance in a simulated overhead drilling task. Appl Ergon. 2019;74:55–66.
10.
AlabdulkarimS, KimS, NussbaumMA. Effects of exoskeleton design and precision requirements on physical demands and quality in a simulated over-head drilling task. Appl Ergon. 2019;80:136–45.
11.
De BockS, GhillebertJ, GovaertsR, ElpramaSA, MarusicU, SerrienB, et al.
Passive Shoulder Exoskeletons: More Effective in the Lab Than in the Field? IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng2021;29:173–83.
12.
HallPT, CrouchDL. Effect of continuous, mechanically passive, anti-gravity assistance on kinematics and muscle activity during dynamic shoulder elevation. J Biomech. 2020;103:109685.
13.
HyunDJ, BaeK, KimK, NamS, LeeD. A light-weight passive upper arm assistive exoskeleton based on multi-linkage spring-energy dissipation mechanism for overhead tasks. Rob Auton Syst. 2019;122:103309.
14.
KimS, NussbaumMA, Mokhlespour EsfahaniMI, AlemiMM, AlabdulkarimS, RashediE. 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 Ergon. 2018;70:315–22.
15.
MauriceP, CamernikJ, GorjanD, SchirrmeisterB, BornmannJ, TagliapietraL, et al.
Objective and Subjective Effects of a Passive Exoskeleton on Overhead Work. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2020;28(1):152–64.
16.
SchmalzT, SchändlingerJ, SchulerM, BornmannJ, SchirrmeisterB, KannenbergA, et al.
Biomechanical and Metabolic Effectiveness of an Industrial Exoskeleton for Overhead Work. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16(23):4792.
17.
TheurelJ, DesbrossesK, RouxT, SavescuA. Physiological consequences of using an upper limb exoskeleton during manual handling tasks. Appl Ergon. 2018;67:211–7.
18.
WestonEB, AlizadehM, KnapikGG, WangX, MarrasWS. Biomechanical evaluation of exoskeleton use on loading on the lumbar spine. Appl Ergon. 2018;68:101–8.
19.
deVries AW, KrauseF, deLooze MP. The effectivity of a passive arm support exoskeleton in reducing muscle activation and perceived exertion during plastering activities. Ergonomics. 2021;64(6):712–21.
20.
GilletteJC, StephensonML. Electromyographic assessment of a shoulder support exoskeleton during on-site job tasks. IISE Trans Occup Ergon Hum Factors. 2019;7(3–4):302–10.
21.
IranzoS, PiedrabuenaA, IordanovD, Martinez-IranzoU, Belda-LoisJM. Ergonomics assessment of passive upper-limb exoskeletons in an automotive assembly plant. Appl Ergon. 2020;87:103120.
22.
SmetsM. A Field Evaluation of Arm-Support Exoskeletons for Overhead Work Applications in Automotive Assembly. IISE Trans Occup Ergon Hum Factors. 2019;7(3–4):192–8.
23.
KimS, NussbaumMA, SmetsM, RanganathanS. Effects of an arm-support exoskeleton on perceived work intensity and musculoskeletal discomfort: An 18-month field study in automotive assembly. Am J Int Med. 2021;64(11):905–14.
24.
KimS, NussbaumMA, SmetsM. Usability, User Acceptance, and Health Outcomes of Arm-support Exoskeleton Use in Automotive Assembly: An 18-month Field Study. J Occup Environ Med. 2022;64(3):202–11.
25.
BorgGA. Psychophysical bases of perceived exertion. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1982;14(5):377–81.
TornqvistEW. Work demanding high energy metabolism. In: Toomingas A, Mathiassen SE, Tornqvist EW, editors. Occupational physiology. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2012. p.19-58.
29.
BrookeJ. SUS: A “quick and dirty” usability scaleIn: Jordan PW, Thomas B, McClelland IL, Weerdmeester B, editors. Usability Evaluation in Industry. London: Taylor and Francis; 1996. p. 189-94.
30.
LewisJR, SauroJ. Item Benchmarks for the System Usability Scale. J Usability Stud. 2018;13(3):158–67.
31.
JonssonB. Measurement and evaluation of local muscular in the shoulder during constrained work. J Human Ergol (Tokyo). 1982;11(1):73–88.
32.
PandolfKB, GivoniB, GoldmanRF. Predicting energy expenditure with loads while standing or walking very slowly. J Appl Physiol Respir Environ Exerc Physiol. 1977;43(4):577–81.
33.
TaylorNAS, PeoplesGE, PetersenSR. Load carriage, human performance, and employment standards.. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 2016;41(6 Suppl 2):S131–47.
34.
FerreiraG, GasparJ, FujãoC, NunesIL Piloting the Use of an Upper Limb Passive Exoskeleton in Automotive Industry: Assessing User Acceptance and Intention of Use. In: Nunes IL, editor. Advances in Human Factors and Systems Interaction, vol 1207. USA: Springer; 2020. p. 342-9.
