2021
DOI: 10.1186/s12984-021-00953-w
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Measuring mental workload in assistive wearable devices: a review

Abstract: As wearable assistive devices, such as prostheses and exoskeletons, become increasingly sophisticated and effective, the mental workload associated with their use remains high and becomes a major challenge to their ecological use and long-term adoption. Numerous methods of measuring mental workload co-exist, making analysis of this research topic difficult. The aim of this review is to examine how mental workload resulting from the use of wearable assistive devices has been measured, in order to gain insight i… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
18
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8
1
1

Relationship

1
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 32 publications
(19 citation statements)
references
References 93 publications
1
18
0
Order By: Relevance
“…It is widely understood that there are three main classes of measures of mental workload: self-report measures, physiological (and neurophysiological) measures, and primary task performance measures. A number of systematic reviews have been already published in this space, including (Kramer, 1991 ; Cain, 2007 ; Morris et al, 2007 ; Whelan, 2007 ; Antonenko et al, 2010 ; Byrne, 2011 ; Lean and Shan, 2012 ; Marquart et al, 2015 ; Young et al, 2015 ; Butmee et al, 2018 ; Orru and Longo, 2018 ; Charles and Nixon, 2019 ; Tao et al, 2019 ; Hancock et al, 2021 ; Marchand et al, 2021 ; Pagnotta et al, 2021 ). Therefore, conducting a new systematic review for mental workload measures not only is not feasible, but unnecessary.…”
Section: Measuring Mental Workloadmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It is widely understood that there are three main classes of measures of mental workload: self-report measures, physiological (and neurophysiological) measures, and primary task performance measures. A number of systematic reviews have been already published in this space, including (Kramer, 1991 ; Cain, 2007 ; Morris et al, 2007 ; Whelan, 2007 ; Antonenko et al, 2010 ; Byrne, 2011 ; Lean and Shan, 2012 ; Marquart et al, 2015 ; Young et al, 2015 ; Butmee et al, 2018 ; Orru and Longo, 2018 ; Charles and Nixon, 2019 ; Tao et al, 2019 ; Hancock et al, 2021 ; Marchand et al, 2021 ; Pagnotta et al, 2021 ). Therefore, conducting a new systematic review for mental workload measures not only is not feasible, but unnecessary.…”
Section: Measuring Mental Workloadmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Interestingly, MWL is correlated to task demand and performance, since it is usually considered that high, as well as low, levels of MWL may have a negative impact on task performance and increase the incidence of errors [ 5 , 6 , 7 ] during the execution of a task. Therefore, the assessment and quantification of MWL represent one of the main interests in ergonomics [ 8 ] with relevant potential impact in different fields such as aeronautics [ 9 ], automotive [ 10 ], education and training [ 11 ], clinical practice, and rehabilitation [ 12 , 13 ].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…But even if we had recorded more parameters, the current state of knowledge on prosthetic locomotion does not allow us to define the optimal gait in lower limb amputees. This is why further analysis of gait but also of more cognitive variables such as mental workload ( 29 ), will allow us to determine whether (dynamic) phantom sensations can be used as somatosensory feedback and be useful for walking.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%