Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 25, 2025
09:46
Training Persons with Spinal Cord Injury to Ambulate Using a Powered Exoskeleton
Published on: June 16, 2016
20.9K
Effectiveness of Soft versus Rigid Back-Support Exoskeletons during a Lifting Task.
Mathilde Schwartz1,2, Jean Theurel1, Kévin Desbrosses1
1Working Life Department, French National Research and Safety Institute for the Prevention of Occupational Accidents and Diseases (INRS), 54500 Vandœuvre-les-Nancy, France.
Summary
Passive back-support exoskeletons (EXO_BK) effectiveness depends on design and trunk movement. Rigid exoskeletons increased muscle activity in some ranges, while soft ones reduced it, showing design and motion range are crucial for selecting an EXO_BK.
Area of Science:
- Biomechanics
- Ergonomics
- Human-robot interaction
Background:
- Occupational lifting tasks pose risks to the erector spinae muscles.
- Passive back-support exoskeletons (EXO_BK) are designed to reduce muscle strain.
- The effectiveness of EXO_BK may vary based on design and user movement.
Purpose of the Study:
- To investigate how passive back-support exoskeleton design (soft vs. rigid) and trunk sagittal inclination (TSI) affect erector spinae muscle (ES) activation during lifting/lowering.
- To determine if gender influences the effectiveness of EXO_BK in reducing ES activation.
Main Methods:
- Twenty-nine volunteers performed a sagittal lifting/lowering task with a soft exoskeleton (SUIT), a rigid exoskeleton (SKEL), and no exoskeleton (FREE).
- Erector spinae muscle (ES) activity was measured across eight trunk sagittal inclination (TSI) phases.
- Statistical analysis compared ES activity between conditions and across TSI ranges.
Main Results:
- Exoskeleton design significantly interacted with TSI to influence ES activity.
- The rigid exoskeleton (SKEL) increased ES activity at the end of lowering (P8) and tended to decrease it at the start of lifting (P3).
- The soft exoskeleton (SUIT) reduced ES activity during lifting (P2, P3) and lowering (P7).
- Gender did not significantly affect the outcomes.
Conclusions:
- Passive back-support exoskeleton effectiveness is contingent on the interplay between exoskeleton design (rigid vs. soft) and the range of trunk motion.
- Careful consideration of exoskeleton design and trunk kinematics is essential for optimizing benefits and mitigating potential negative effects.
- Selecting an appropriate passive back-support exoskeleton requires evaluating human-exoskeleton interaction under real task conditions.
