1,631
Views
1
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Articles

Field study on the use and acceptance of an arm support exoskeleton in plastering

Pages 1622-1632 | Received 20 Sep 2022, Accepted 08 Dec 2022, Published online: 27 Dec 2022

Figures & data

Figure 1. Overview of the questionnaires and set up of the field study.

A schematic representation of the used questionnaires. There is a daily questionnaire, a weekly questionnaire and two check ups by phone.
Figure 1. Overview of the questionnaires and set up of the field study.

Figure 2. Screen capture of the questionnaire on a mobile phone. Three different screens are shown, with questions and answers in the plasterers native language (Dutch). From left to right we asked whether they performed these tasks and for how long, whether they used the exoskeleton for these tasks and whether their shift duration was shorter or longer.

Screen captures of the questionnaire on a mobile phone are shown. Multiple choice tick boxes, single choice radio buttons and sliders are used to capture the participant’s responses.
Figure 2. Screen capture of the questionnaire on a mobile phone. Three different screens are shown, with questions and answers in the plasterers native language (Dutch). From left to right we asked whether they performed these tasks and for how long, whether they used the exoskeleton for these tasks and whether their shift duration was shorter or longer.

Figure 3. Skelex 360 (Rotterdam, The Netherlands).

A picture of Skelex 360, the passive arm support exoskeleton that was used in the study.
Figure 3. Skelex 360 (Rotterdam, The Netherlands).

Table 1. An overview of the reported tasks that the plasterers performed over the six weeks.

Figure 4. Exoskeleton use per task. The size of the circle represents the percentage of respondents per day for each ordinal response). Tasks with Beta coefficients representing ‘often used’ and ‘always used’ are marked green, tasks with Beta coefficients indicating ‘as much used as not used’ are marked in yellow, and tasks representing ‘not used’ or ‘sometimes used’ are marked in red. Per colour coded category, the two most executed tasks are visually shown.

Exoskeleton use per task over time is graphically represented. Little change is seen over time. Different tasks do lead to changes in exoskeleton use.
Figure 4. Exoskeleton use per task. The size of the circle represents the percentage of respondents per day for each ordinal response). Tasks with Beta coefficients representing ‘often used’ and ‘always used’ are marked green, tasks with Beta coefficients indicating ‘as much used as not used’ are marked in yellow, and tasks representing ‘not used’ or ‘sometimes used’ are marked in red. Per colour coded category, the two most executed tasks are visually shown.

Table 2. Parameter estimates for exo usage per task exponentiated beta coefficients predicting exoskeleton use.

Figure 5. Experienced load per exo use category. Significant differences compared to exo use 1 (not used) are presented with a star. Boxes range from the 25th to the 75th percentile, whiskers represent the data range, and median is indicated with a solid orange line.

Experienced load per exo use category are shown.
Figure 5. Experienced load per exo use category. Significant differences compared to exo use 1 (not used) are presented with a star. Boxes range from the 25th to the 75th percentile, whiskers represent the data range, and median is indicated with a solid orange line.

Figure 6. The effect of exo use on breaks and working hours. Percentage of respondents is represented by the size of the dots (see legend for reference).

The effect of exo use on breaks and working hours is shown. The exoskeleton had minimal effect on both aspects, neither did this change over time.
Figure 6. The effect of exo use on breaks and working hours. Percentage of respondents is represented by the size of the dots (see legend for reference).

Figure 7. Perceived productivity and quality. Percentage of respondents is represented by the size of the dots (see legend for reference).

The effect of exo use on perceived productivity and quality is shown. The exoskeleton had minimal effect on both aspects, neither did this change over time.
Figure 7. Perceived productivity and quality. Percentage of respondents is represented by the size of the dots (see legend for reference).

Figure 8. Experienced advantages (pros) and disadvantages (cons) when working with the exoskeleton, as reported on a weekly (w1–w6) basis. The percentages of the number of respondents are shown. Multiple answers were allowed, adding op to totals exceeding 100%.

The experienced advantages and disadvantages are shown in a bar graph. The most prominent observations are described in the text below.
Figure 8. Experienced advantages (pros) and disadvantages (cons) when working with the exoskeleton, as reported on a weekly (w1–w6) basis. The percentages of the number of respondents are shown. Multiple answers were allowed, adding op to totals exceeding 100%.

Figure 9. Will to use the exoskeleton. Percentage of respondents is represented by the size of the dots (see legend for reference).

The will to use the exoskeleton in the future is shown. The exact numbers are mentioned in the text. In addition, this figure shows that the will to use the exoskeleton did not change over time.
Figure 9. Will to use the exoskeleton. Percentage of respondents is represented by the size of the dots (see legend for reference).