The impact of an active and passive industrial back exoskeleton on functional performance

Evaluating cognitive and physical work performance: A comparative study of an active and passive industrial back-support exoskeleton

“…Unlike previous generation exoskeletons, for example, the Laevo (V2.0 and V2.5, Laevo B.V., Delft, Netherlands) and BackX (Ottobock SE, Duderstadt, Germany), two passive back-support exoskeletons known to impede walking performance (Baltrusch et al, 2018;Luger et al, 2021;Park et al, 2022), the Paexo Back incorporates a mechanical clutch at the hip that automatically distinguishes between bending and walking and switches itself off during walking. This addition seems to effectively mitigate hindrances to walking, as previously indicated in our earlier study (Govaerts et al, 2023b). Furthermore, the issue of passive devices providing unwanted resistance to dynamic movements has been discussed by other researchers, therefore favoring these exoskeletons for static tasks (Tommaso Poliero et al, 2022;Toxiri et al, 2019).…”

“…Furthermore, the issue of passive devices providing unwanted resistance to dynamic movements has been discussed by other researchers, therefore favoring these exoskeletons for static tasks (Tommaso Poliero et al, 2022;Toxiri et al, 2019). However, the Paexo Back demonstrated an overall positive trend in work performance and perceived task difficulty during repetitive lifting and lowering of a 20 kg box in our previous study (Govaerts et al, 2023b). Furthermore, in similar studies investigating passive devices (including the Paexo Back) for comparable lifting and lowering tasks, significant reductions in muscle activity and energetic expenditure were observed (Alemi et al, 2020;Luger et al, 2021).…”

“…This is supported by other studies indicating lower energetic costs (Baltrusch et al, 2020;Schmalz et al, 2022) and delayed muscle fatigue onset (Yin et al, 2019;Lamers et al, 2020) when using a back-support exoskeleton. However, our recent study revealed that the active CrayX exoskeleton hindered overall work performance significantly more compared to the passive Paexo Back exoskeleton (Govaerts et al, 2023b). Acknowledging the contribution of participant characteristics, exoskeleton design, and experimental protocols to work performance variation, it is plausible that differences in cognitive load between the two exoskeleton types could also play a significant role.…”

“…In the present study, we employed two distinct exoskeletons (Figure 1): the passive Paexo Back (Ottobock SE, Duderstadt, Germany) and the active CrayX (4th generation, German Bionic Systems GMBH, Augsburg, Germany). A comprehensive description of these exoskeletons is provided by Govaerts et al (2023b).…”

“…Detailed information regarding the functional test battery can be found in Baltrusch et al (2018). Results of the functional performance of both exoskeletons can be found in Govaerts et al (2023b). A fourth familiarization session was conducted specifically to familiarize participants with the measurement tools and the experimental task.…”