A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 197

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1075
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3195
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once

Dynamic and Static Assistive Strategies for a Tailored Occupational Back-Support Exoskeleton: Assessment on Real Tasks Carried Out by Railway Workers. | LitMetric

Dynamic and Static Assistive Strategies for a Tailored Occupational Back-Support Exoskeleton: Assessment on Real Tasks Carried Out by Railway Workers.

Bioengineering (Basel)

Department of Advanced Robotics, Istituto Italiano di Tecnologia, Via San Quirico 19d, 16163 Genoa, Italy.

Published: February 2024


Category Ranking

98%

Total Visits

921

Avg Visit Duration

2 minutes

Citations

20

Article Abstract

This study on occupational back-support exoskeletons performs a laboratory evaluation of realistic tasks with expert workers from the railway sector. Workers performed both a static task and a dynamic task, each involving manual material handling (MMH) and manipulating loads of 20 kg, in three conditions: without an exoskeleton, with a commercially available passive exoskeleton (Laevo v2.56), and with the StreamEXO, an active back-support exoskeleton developed by our institute. Two control strategies were defined, one for dynamic tasks and one for static tasks, with the latter determining the upper body's gravity compensation through the Model-based Gravity Compensation (MB-Grav) approach. This work presents a comparative assessment of the performance of active back support exoskeletons versus passive exoskeletons when trialled in relevant and realistic tasks. After a lab characterization of the MB-Grav strategy, the experimental assessment compared two back-support exoskeletons, one active and one passive. The results showed that while both devices were able to reduce back muscle activation, the benefits of the active device were triple those of the passive system regarding back muscle activation (26% and 33% against 9% and 11%, respectively), while the passive exoskeleton hindered trunk mobility more than the active mechanism.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10885892PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering11020172DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

occupational back-support
8
back-support exoskeleton
8
back-support exoskeletons
8
realistic tasks
8
passive exoskeleton
8
gravity compensation
8
muscle activation
8
exoskeleton
5
tasks
5
passive
5

Similar Publications