With mechanical loading as the main risk factor for LBP in mind, exoskeletons are designed to reduce the load on the back by taking over a part of the required moment. The present study assessed the effect of a passive exoskeleton on back and abdominal muscle activation, hip and lumbar flexion and on the contribution of both the human and the exoskeleton to the L5/S1 net moment, during static bending at five different hand heights. Two configurations of the exoskeleton (LOW & HIGH) differing in angle-torque characteristics were tested. L5/S1 moments generated by the subjects were significantly reduced (15-20% for the most effective type) at all hand heights. LOW generated 4-11 Nm more support than HIGH at 50%, 25% and 0% upright stance hand height and HIGH generated 4-5 Nm more support than LOW at 100% and 75%. Significant reductions (11-57%) in back muscle activity were found compared to WITHOUT for both exoskeletons for some conditions. However, EMG reductions compared to WITHOUT were highly variable across subjects and not always significant. The device allowed for substantial lumbar bending (up to 70°) so that a number of participants showed the flexion-relaxation phenomenon, which prevented further reduction of back EMG by the device and even an increase from 2% to 6% MVC in abdominal activity at 25% hand height. These results indicate that flexion relaxation and its interindividual variation should be considered in future exoskeleton developments.

In the EU, lower back pain affects more than 40% of the working population. Mechanical loading of the lower back has been shown to be an important risk factor. Peak mechanical load can be reduced by ergonomic interventions, the use of cranes and, more recently, by the use of exoskeletons. Despite recent advances in the development of exoskeletons for industrial applications, they are not widely adopted by industry yet. Some of the challenges, which have to be overcome are a reduced range of motion, misalignment between the human anatomy and kinematics of the exoskeleton as well as discomfort. A body of research exists on how an exoskeleton can be designed to compensate for misalignment and thereby improve comfort. However, how to design an exoskeleton that achieves a similar range of motion as a human lumbar spine of up to 60 • in the sagittal plane, has not been extensively investigated. We addressed this need by developing and testing a novel passive back support exoskeleton, including a mechanism comprised of flexible beams, which run in parallel to the spine, providing a large range of motion and lowering the peak torque requirements around the lumbo-sacral (L5/S1) joint. Furthermore, we ran a pilot study to test the biomechanical (N = 2) and functional (N = 3) impact on subjects while wearing the exoskeleton. The biomechanical testing was once performed with flexible beams as a back interface and once with a rigid structure. An increase of more than 25% range of motion of the trunk in the sagittal plane was observed by using the flexible beams. The pilot functional tests, which are compared to results from a previous study with the Laevo device, suggest, that the novel exoskeleton is perceived as less hindering in almost all tested tasks.

Active exoskeletons are potentially more effective and versatile than passive ones, but designing them poses a number of additional challenges. An important open challenge in the field is associated to the assistive strategy, by which the actuation forces are modulated to the user's needs during the physical activity. This paper addresses this challenge on an active exoskeleton prototype aimed at reducing compressive low-back loads, associated to risk of musculoskeletal injury during manual material handling (i.e., repeatedly lifting objects). An analysis of the biomechanics of the physical task reveals two key factors that determine low-back loads. For each factor, a suitable control strategy for the exoskeleton is implemented. The first strategy is based on user posture and modulates the assistance to support the wearer's own upper body. The second one adapts to the mass of the lifted object and is a practical implementation of electromyographic control. A third strategy is devised as a generalized combination of the first two. With these strategies, the proposed exoskeleton can quickly adjust to different task conditions (which makes it versatile compared to using multiple, task-specific, devices) as well as to individual preference (which promotes user acceptance). Additionally, the presented implementation is potentially applicable to more powerful exoskeletons, capable of generating larger forces. The different strategies are implemented on the exoskeleton and tested on 11 participants in an experiment reproducing the lifting task. The resulting data highlights that the strategies modulate the assistance as intended by design, i.e., they effectively adjust the commanded assistive torque during operation based on user posture and external mass. The experiment also provides evidence of significant reduction in muscular activity at the lumbar spine (around 30%) associated to using the exoskeleton. The reduction is well in line with previous literature and may be associated to lower risk of injury.

The objective of this study was to assess how wearing a passive trunk exoskeleton affects metabolic costs, movement strategy and muscle activation during repetitive lifting and walking. We measured energy expenditure, kinematics and muscle activity in 11 healthy men during 5 min of repetitive lifting and 5 min of walking with and without exoskeleton. Wearing the exoskeleton during lifting, metabolic costs decreased as much as 17%. In conjunction, participants tended to move through a smaller range of motion, reducing mechanical work generation. Walking with the exoskeleton, metabolic costs increased up to 17%. Participants walked somewhat slower with shortened steps while abdominal muscle activity slightly increased when wearing the exoskeleton. Wearing an exoskeleton during lifting decreased metabolic costs and hence may reduce the development of fatigue and low back pain risk. During walking metabolic costs increased, stressing the need for a device that allows disengagement of support depending on activities performed.Practitioner summary: Physiological strain is an important risk factor for low back pain. We observed that an exoskeleton reduced metabolic costs during lifting, but had an opposite effect while walking. Therefore, exoskeletons may be of benefit for lifting by decreasing physiological strain but should allow disengagement of support when switching between tasks.Abbreviations: COM: centre of mass; EMG: electromyography; LBP: low back pain; MVC: maximum voluntary isometric contraction; NIOSH: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health; PLAD: personal lift augmentation device; PWS: preferred walking speed without exoskeleton; PWSX: preferred walking speed with exoskeleton; ROM: range of motion; RER: respiratory exchange ratio; V _O2max: maximum rate of oxygen consumption ARTICLE HISTORY

Purpose Besides mechanical loading of the back, physiological strain is an important risk factor for low-back pain. Recently a passive exoskeleton (SPEXOR) has been developed to reduce loading on the low back. We aimed to assess the effect of this device on metabolic cost of repetitive lifting. To explain potential effects, we assessed kinematics, mechanical joint work, and back muscle activity. Methods We recruited ten male employees, working in the luggage handling department of an airline company and having ample experience with lifting tasks at work. Metabolic cost, kinematics, mechanical joint work and muscle activity were measured during a 5-min repetitive lifting task. Participants had to lift and lower a box of 10 kg from ankle height with and without the exoskeleton. Results Metabolic cost was significantly reduced by 18% when wearing the exoskeleton. Kinematics did not change significantly, while muscle activity decreased by up to 16%. The exoskeleton took over 18-25% of joint work at the hip and L5S1 joints. However, due to large variation in individual responses, we did not find a significant reduction of joint work around the individual joints. Conclusion Wearing the SPEXOR exoskeleton decreased metabolic cost and might, therefore, reduce fatigue development and contribute to prevention of low-back pain during repetitive lifting tasks. Reduced metabolic cost can be explained by the exoskeleton substituting part of muscle work at the hip and L5S1 joints and consequently decreasing required back muscle activity.