The effectivity of a passive arm support exoskeleton in reducing muscle activation and perceived exertion during plastering activities

Abstract

The supportive effect of arm-support exoskeletons has been mainly studied for single postures or movements. The aim of this study is to analyse the effect of such an exoskeleton on shoulder muscle activity and perceived exertion, in six tasks of plasterers, each including multiple arm movements. The tasks of ‘applying gypsum’, ‘screeding’ and ‘finishing’ were performed at a ceiling and a wall, with exoskeleton (Exo) and without (NoExo). EMG was recorded of six muscles involved in upper arm elevation, four agonists and two antagonists, and plasterers rated their perceived exertion (RPE). In all tasks, the EMG amplitudes of three agonist muscles, Trapezius and Medial Deltoid, and Biceps Brachii, were lower in Exo vs NoExo, while the agonist, Anterior Deltoid, showed lower EMG values in Exo in most tasks. None of the antagonists (Triceps Brachii, Pectoralis Major) showed increased EMG values in the Exo condition. RPE’s were lower in Exo condition for all tasks, except for ‘applying gypsum to the wall’. Overall, the exoskeleton seems to reduce loads in realistic plastering tasks.

Practitioner summary: Exoskeletons are an emerging technology in the field of ergonomics. Passive arm support exoskeletons have mainly been tested in lab studies using continuous overhead work, involving one posture or movement. However, in reality, working tasks generally involve multiple movements. This study investigates the effectiveness of an arm support exoskeleton in work that requires multiple arm movements, specifically in plastering. Muscle activity, as well as perceived exertion were both reduced when working with an exoskeleton.

Abbreviations: Exo: with exoskeleton; NoExo: without exoskeleton; RPE: rated perceived exertion; EMG: electromyography; Trap: upper trapezius; AD: anterior deltoid; MD: medial deltoid; BB: biceps brachii; TB: triceps brachii; PM: pectoralis major; RPD: rated perceived discomfort; p50: 50th percentile; p90: 90th percentile; MVC: maximum voluntary contraction; GEE: generalised estimated equations

Keywords:

• Exoskeleton
• construction
• muscle activity
• MSD
• plastering

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank KNAUF for making this research possible and help us bridge the gap between scientific experiments and practical application. Additionally, we would like to thank Skelex for providing the arm support exoskeleton for this study. Lastly, we would like the thank NOA for making their plastering training center available as a testing location.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This research was supported by Dutch Topsector of Life Sciences and Health [TKI-LSH-2017), co-funded by Knauf.