“…Existing work on powered, occupational exoskeletons has had more emphasis on prototyping, structural design, and control algorithms while targeting a specific body part such as the low back [14], [15], the lower extremity [16], [17], or the upper extremity [18], [19]. There are a few reports on the effectiveness of a commercially-available powered exoskeleton for the low back [Hybrid Assistive Limb (HAL TM ) for Care Support, Cyberdyne, Ibaraki, Japan] during snow shoveling [20], repetitive lifting [21], and patient handling [22]. These and related studies suggest that a powered exoskeleton is likely heavier and more complex in design than a passive one, but that it can be more versatile and functional with active control.…”
With rapid advancements in exoskeleton technologies, a whole-body powered exoskeleton (WB-PEXO) for augmenting human physical capacity (a "super-operator") is generating increasing attention as an integral part of Industry 4.0. Our understanding of WB-PEXO use is lagging, however, largely due to the lack of detailed evaluations via human-subjects testing of a WB-PEXO. We examined (independently from the manufacturer of a WB-PEXO) the potential impacts of using a state-of-the-art WB-PEXO prototype (pre-alpha prototype version of the Sarcos Guardian ® XO ® ) on users (n=5) during a common basic activity in the workplace, level walking. With emphasis on "human", impacts of XO use (compared to a no EXO baseline) were assessed in terms of lower limb intersegmental coordination, muscle activity, and postural dynamic stability. A larger variance between participants was observed for intersegmental coordination with XO use, and participants appeared to rely on more hip motions. When using the XO, participants exhibited higher muscle activity levels in the lower limb muscle groups monitored. Further, there was a moderate to high similarity in muscle activity profiles between the XO and no EXO conditions ( !" ( ) = 0.70 − 0.92), yet muscle activity profiles when using the XO were generally time-lagged from those without the XO. We discuss the results within the context of developing a mental model for walking with the XO, and aspects of human-robot interaction such as transparency of the XO and understanding user state and intention. In concluding, we outline several future research topics for occupational WB-PEXO development.INDEX TERMS Gait performance, human-robot interaction, occupational exoskeleton, whole body system.
“…Existing work on powered, occupational exoskeletons has had more emphasis on prototyping, structural design, and control algorithms while targeting a specific body part such as the low back [14], [15], the lower extremity [16], [17], or the upper extremity [18], [19]. There are a few reports on the effectiveness of a commercially-available powered exoskeleton for the low back [Hybrid Assistive Limb (HAL TM ) for Care Support, Cyberdyne, Ibaraki, Japan] during snow shoveling [20], repetitive lifting [21], and patient handling [22]. These and related studies suggest that a powered exoskeleton is likely heavier and more complex in design than a passive one, but that it can be more versatile and functional with active control.…”
With rapid advancements in exoskeleton technologies, a whole-body powered exoskeleton (WB-PEXO) for augmenting human physical capacity (a "super-operator") is generating increasing attention as an integral part of Industry 4.0. Our understanding of WB-PEXO use is lagging, however, largely due to the lack of detailed evaluations via human-subjects testing of a WB-PEXO. We examined (independently from the manufacturer of a WB-PEXO) the potential impacts of using a state-of-the-art WB-PEXO prototype (pre-alpha prototype version of the Sarcos Guardian ® XO ® ) on users (n=5) during a common basic activity in the workplace, level walking. With emphasis on "human", impacts of XO use (compared to a no EXO baseline) were assessed in terms of lower limb intersegmental coordination, muscle activity, and postural dynamic stability. A larger variance between participants was observed for intersegmental coordination with XO use, and participants appeared to rely on more hip motions. When using the XO, participants exhibited higher muscle activity levels in the lower limb muscle groups monitored. Further, there was a moderate to high similarity in muscle activity profiles between the XO and no EXO conditions ( !" ( ) = 0.70 − 0.92), yet muscle activity profiles when using the XO were generally time-lagged from those without the XO. We discuss the results within the context of developing a mental model for walking with the XO, and aspects of human-robot interaction such as transparency of the XO and understanding user state and intention. In concluding, we outline several future research topics for occupational WB-PEXO development.INDEX TERMS Gait performance, human-robot interaction, occupational exoskeleton, whole body system.
“…These robots have been described as “wearable equipment for transfer aids” in the priority area of care robot technology in Japan [ 11 ] and are expected to be used in the provision of nursing care services. Although these robots are effective in reducing muscle fatigue and muscle activity in specific movement tasks in experimental environments [ 12 , 13 ], there is little information on how they could be utilized efficiently at nursing facilities. Fig.…”
Background
To reduce the physical burden of caregivers, wearable transfer support robots are highly desirable. Although these robots are reportedly effective for specific tasks in experimental environments, there is little information about their effectiveness at nursing care facilities. The aim of this study was to identify care tasks and operations suitable for the use of these robots among caregivers in nursing facilities where these robots have been in use on a daily basis.
Methods
A 1-min observational time-motion analysis was conducted to examine care tasks and operations in two nursing facilities where wearable transfer support robots, namely Muscle Suit or HAL® Lumbar Type for Care Support, have been used routinely on a daily basis for more than 24 months.
Results
Analysis of the care tasks and their time ratio while wearing the equipment revealed that both robots were used conspicuously for direct care in over 70% of transits, especially during transfer assistance and toileting care. Furthermore, these robots were used intensively in the morning along with wake-up calls to care recipients, where pre-assigned wearers used them as part of their “routine work.”
Conclusions
We found that these wearable transfer support robots enabled effective performance of care tasks and operations in nursing facilities where these robots have been used on a daily basis for an extended period of time. These results may lead to the effective implementation and sustained operation of other types of care robots in the future.
Trial registration
UMIN Clinical Trials Registry no. UMIN000039204. Trial registration date: January 21, 2020. Interventional study. Parallel, non-randomized, single blinded.
“…However, only 7.6% of facilities have actually introduced them [14]. It is also reported that more than half of these robots have not been utilized effectively even after being introduced [14]. The reasons hampering their introduction include their low costeffectiveness and complications in receiving subsidies for such equipment [15].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…According to a recent survey of all health service facilities for the elderly in Japan (N = 1,347), approximately 60% of facilities responded that they would like to consider or are considering the introduction of wearable robotic care equipment for transfer aids. However, only 7.6% of facilities have actually introduced them [14]. It is also reported that more than half of these robots have not been utilized effectively even after being introduced [14].…”
Background: To reduce the physical burden of caregivers, wearable transfer support robots are highly desirable. Although these robots are reportedly effective for specific tasks in experimental environments, there is little information about their effectiveness at nursing care facilities. The aim of this study was to identify care tasks and operations suitable for the use of these robots among caregivers in nursing facilities where these robots have been in use on a daily basis.Methods: A 1-min observational time-motion analysis was conducted to examine care tasks and operations in two nursing facilities where wearable transfer support robots, namely Muscle Suit or HAL®, Lumbar Type for Care Support, have routinely been used on a daily basis for more than 24 months.Results: Analysis of the care tasks and their time ratio while wearing the equipment revealed that both robots were conspicuously used for direct care in over 70% of transits, especially during transfer assistance and toileting care. Furthermore, these robots were used intensively in the morning along with wake-up calls to care recipients, where pre-assigned wearers used them as part of their “routine work.”Conclusions: We found that these wearable transfer support robots enabled effective performance of care tasks and operations in nursing facilities where these robots have been used on a daily basis for an extended period of time. These results may lead to the effective implementation and sustained operation of other types of care robots in the future.Trial registration: UMIN Clinical Trials Registry no. UMIN000039204. Trial registration date: January 21, 2020. Interventional study. Parallel, non-randomized, single blinded.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
