Subjective Evaluation of a Passive Industrial Exoskeleton for Lower-back Support: A Field Study in the Automotive Sector

Hensel, R.; Keil, Mathias

doi:10.1080/24725838.2019.1573770

Cited by 105 publications

(107 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

101

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition, other barriers to acceptance include general discomfort, for example, a chest pad of a back assist exoskeleton making uncomfortable contact with the thoracic region . Thermal discomfort has been described and can be exacerbated in the summer months in warmer environments .…”

Section: Adoption Barriersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Industrial exoskeletons: Need for intervention effectiveness research

Howard

Murashov

Lowe

et al. 2019

American J Industrial Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Exoskeleton devices are being introduced across several industry sectors to augment, amplify, or reinforce the performance of a worker's existing body components-primarily the lower back and the upper extremity. Industrial exoskeletons may play a role in reducing work-related musculoskeletal disorders arising from lifting and handling heavy materials or from supporting heavy tools in overhead work. However, wearing an exoskeleton may pose a number of risks that are currently not well-studied. There are only a few studies about the safety and health implications of wearable exoskeletons and most of those studies involve only a small number of participants. Before the widespread implementation of industrial exoskeletons occurs, there is need for prospective interventional studies to evaluate the safety and health effectiveness of exoskeletons across various industry sectors. Developing a research strategy to fill current safety and health knowledge gaps, understanding the benefits, risks, and barriers to adoption of industrial exoskeletons, determining whether exoskeleton can be considered a type of personal protective equipment, and advancing consensus standards that address exoskeleton safety, should be major interests of both the occupational safety and health research and practice communities. K E Y W O R D S exoskeleton, human augmentation, intervention effectiveness, PPE

show abstract

Section: Adoption Barriersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Industrial exoskeletons: Need for intervention effectiveness research

Howard

Murashov

Lowe

et al. 2019

American J Industrial Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This prevents us from drawing clear conclusions related to acceptance. Hensel and Keil (2019) provided 18 workers a Laevo (v2.5) exoskeleton for 4 weeks. They found a significant reduction of workers’ intention to use exoskeletons compared to the start of their testing period.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social Processes: What Determines Industrial Workers’ Intention to Use Exoskeletons?

Elprama

Vannieuwenhuyze

Bock³

et al. 2020

Hum Factors

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective The aim of this study is to test the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) model for explaining the intention to use exoskeletons among industrial workers. Background Exoskeletons could help reduce physical workload and risk for injuries among industrial workers. Therefore, it is crucial to understand which factors play a role in workers’ intention to use such exoskeletons. Method Industrial workers ( N = 124) completed a survey on their attitudes regarding the use of exoskeletons at their workplace. Using partial least squares (PLS) path modeling, the UTAUT model and a revised version of the UTAUT model were fitted to these data. Results The adapted UTAUT model of Dwivedi et al. (2017) was able to explain up to 75.6% of the variance in intention to use exoskeletons, suggesting a reasonable model fit. Conclusion The model fit suggests that effort expectancy (how easy it seems to use an exoskeleton) plays an important role in predicting the intention to use exoskeletons. Social influence (whether others think workers should use exoskeletons) and performance expectancy (how useful exoskeletons seem to be for work) play a smaller role in predicting the intention to use. Applications This research informs companies about the optimal implementation of exoskeletons by improving the determinants of acceptance among their workers.

show abstract

“…Gillette and Stephenson (2019) emphasized the need to evaluate comfort and fit. These aspects were also highlighted by Hensel and Keil (2019), in that discomfort was strongly and inversely associated with user acceptance, and by Marino (2019), in that workers reported concerns about movement quality, task performance, and comfort. Comfort (and discomfort) was also emphasized by Luger, Cobb, Seibt, Rieger, and Steinhilber (2019) in this issue.…”

Section: The Presentmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…Papers in this issue include results from studies among several early adopters. Hensel and Keil (2019) provide results from a 4-week field trial of a low-back support exoskeleton (Laevo) among automotive manufacturing workers at AUDI AG. Tasks performed by the workers included both static trunk flexion and dynamic manual material handling.…”

Section: The Pastmentioning

confidence: 99%