Industrial Exoskeleton Technology: Classification, Structural Analysis, and Structural Complexity Indicator

Voilqué, Anthony; Masood, Jawad; Fauroux, J-C; Sabourin, Laurent; Guézet, Olivier

doi:10.1109/wearracon.2019.8719395

Cited by 61 publications

(49 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Yet, other passive exoskeletons for arm support do exist (e.g., EksoVest TM , Airframe TM , SkelEx, MATE, ShoulderX). Those competing devices are based on similar mechanical principles to PAEXO, but their designs differ [19]. A reduction in shoulder physical strain was reported with all those exosleketons, but numerical values largely vary (Section V-A).…”

Section: E Comparison With Competing Exoskeletonsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The result is a free movement of the trunk and upper extremities, with no rigid elements in the back, and for a weight of only 1.8 kg. An analysis of PAEXO's kinematic strucutre is presented in [19], and further details on the mechanical design as well as a video demonstrating the exoskeleton are available on the product webpage https: //www.ottobock.com/en/company/ottobock-industrials/paexo/.…”

Section: A Exoskeleton Descriptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Design differences might explain these variations from one system to another. As mentioned in Section V-A, the light weight of PAEXO compared to its concurrents is a significant advantage which certainly limits the overloading of the low back (PAEXO: 1.8 kg; EksoVest TM : 4.3 kg; ShoulderX: 5.3 kg; MATE: 4.0 kg; SkelEx: 3.4 kg; Airframe TM : 2.7 kg, Robo-Mate: 7.2 kg [19,41]). Nevertheless, some heavier exoskeletons offer more options as a trade-off.…”

Section: E Comparison With Competing Exoskeletonsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Exoskeletons are therefore drawing great interest from the industry. Recently, several industrial prototypes providing arm support during overhead tasks have been developed and tested [9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19]. Some are already commercialized, e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Objective and Subjective Effects of a Passive Exoskeleton on Overhead Work

Maurice

Ivaldi

Babič

et al. 2020

IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng.

161

117

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Overhead work is a frequent cause of shoulder work-related musculoskeletal disorders. Exoskeletons offering arm support have the potential to reduce shoulder strain, without requiring large scale reorganization of the workspace. Assessment of such systems however requires to take multiple factors into consideration. This paper presents a thorough in-lab assessment of PAEXO, a novel passive exoskeleton for arm support during overhead work. A list of evaluation criteria and associated performance metrics is proposed to cover both objective and subjective effects of the exoskeleton, on the user and on the task being performed. These metrics are measured during a lab study, where 12 participants perform an overhead pointing task with and without the exoskeleton, while their physical, physiological and psychological states are monitored. Results show that using PAEXO reduces shoulder physical strain as well as global physiological strain, without increasing low back strain nor degrading balance. These positive effects are achieved without degrading task performance. Importantly, participants' opinions of PAEXO are positive, in agreement with the objective measures. Thus, PAEXO seems a promising solution to help prevent shoulder injuries and diseases among overhead workers, without negatively impacting productivity.

show abstract

Section: E Comparison With Competing Exoskeletonsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: A Exoskeleton Descriptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: E Comparison With Competing Exoskeletonsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Objective and Subjective Effects of a Passive Exoskeleton on Overhead Work

Maurice

Ivaldi

Babič

et al. 2020

IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng.

161

117

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…They can be classified as active, passive, and semi-active exoskeletons [ 3 ]. Active exoskeletons use actuators (electrical motors, hydraulic, or pneumatics-driven [ 4 ]) to support human movement, providing additional strength and increasing the performance of the user.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Ferraro

Falcone

Ranavolo

et al. 2020

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: New wearable assistive devices (exoskeletons) have been developed for assisting people during work activity or rehabilitation. Although exoskeletons have been introduced into different occupational fields in an attempt to reduce the risk of work-related musculoskeletal disorders, the effectiveness of their use in workplaces still needs to be investigated. This systematic review focused on the effects of upper-body exoskeletons (UBEs) on human metabolic cost and thermophysiological response during upper-body work tasks. Methods: articles published until 22 September 2020 were selected from Scopus, Web of Science, and PubMed for eligibility and the potential risk of bias was assessed. Results: Nine articles resulted in being eligible for the metabolic aspects, and none for the thermal analysis. All the studies were based on comparisons between conditions with and without exoskeletons and considered a total of 94 participants (mainly males) performing tasks involving the trunk or overhead work, 7 back-support exoskeletons, and 1 upper-limb support exoskeleton. Eight studies found a significant reduction in the mean values of the metabolic or cardiorespiratory parameters considered and one found no differences. Conclusions: The reduction found represents a preliminary finding that needs to be confirmed in a wider range of conditions, especially in workplaces, where work tasks show different characteristics and durations compared to those simulated in the laboratory. Future developments should investigate the dependence of metabolic cost on specific UBE design approaches during tasks involving the trunk and the possible statistical correlation between the metabolic cost and the surface ElectroMyoGraphy (sEMG) parameters. Finally, it could be interesting to investigate the effect of exoskeletons on the human thermophysiological response.

show abstract