References
- Akrich, M. (1989). La construction d’un système socio-technique. Esquisse pour une anthropologie des techniques. Anthropologie et Sociétés, 13(2), 31–54. doi:10.7202/015076ar
- Baltrusch, S. J., van Dieën, J. H., van Bennekom, C. A. M., & Houdijk, H. (2018). The effect of a passive trunk exoskeleton on functional performance in healthy individuals. Applied Ergonomics, 72, 94–106. doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2018.04.007
- Bengts, M. K. (2004). Usability as a constituent of end-user computing satisfaction (Master’s thesis). University of Jyvaskyla, Jyvaskyla.
- Bobillier Chaumon, M.-E. (2016). L’acceptation située des technologies dans et par l’activité: Premiers étayages pour une clinique de l’usage. Psychologie du Travail et Des Organisations, 22(1), 4–21. doi:10.1016/j.pto.2016.01.001
- Bosch, T., van Eck, J., Knitel, K., & de Looze, M. (2016). The effects of a passive exoskeleton on muscle activity, discomfort and endurance time in forward bending work. Applied Ergonomics, 54, 212–217. doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2015.12.003
- Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319. doi:10.2307/249008
- Delaval, K., Larroque, D., Ravallec, C., & Vaudoux, D. Les dispositifs d'assistance physique. Travail & sécurité, (788), November 2017.
- Descatha, A., Roquelaure, Y., Chastang, J. F., Evanoff, B., Melchior, M., Mariot, C., … Leclerc, A. (2007). Validity of Nordic-style questionnaires in the surveillance of upper-limb work-related musculoskeletal disorders. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, 33(1), 58.
- Gopura, R. A. R. C., & Kiguchi, K. (2009). Mechanical designs of active upper-limb exoskeleton robots: State-of-the-art and design difficulties. Paper presented at the 2009 IEEE International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics, Kyoto, Japan. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICORR.2009.5209630
- Graham, R. B., Agnew, M. J., & Stevenson, J. M. (2009). Effectiveness of an on-body lifting aid at reducing low back physical demands during an automotive assembly task: Assessment of EMG response and user acceptability. Applied Ergonomics, 40(5), 936–942. doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2009.01.006
- Hensel, R., & Keil, M. (2019). Subjective evaluation of a passive industrial exoskeleton for lower-back support: A field study in the automotive sector. IISE Transactions on Occupational Ergonomics and Human Factors, 1–9. doi:10.1080/24725838.2019.1573770
- Hill, S. G., Iavecchia, H. P., Byers, J. C., Bittner, A. C., Zaklade, A. L., & Christ, R. E. (1992). Comparison of four subjective workload rating scales. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 34(4), 429–439. doi:10.1177/001872089203400405
- Huysamen, K., Bosch, T., de Looze, M., Stadler, K. S., Graf, E., & O’Sullivan, L. W. (2018). Evaluation of a passive exoskeleton for static upper limb activities. Applied Ergonomics, 70, 148–155. doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2018.02.009
- Kim, S., Nussbaum, M. A., Mokhlespour Esfahani, M. I., Alemi, M. M., Alabdulkarim, S., & Rashedi, E. (2018). Assessing the influence of a passive, upper extremity exoskeletal vest for tasks requiring arm elevation: Part I – “Expected” effects on discomfort, shoulder muscle activity, and work task performance. Applied Ergonomics, 70, 315–322. doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2018.02.025
- Maciejasz, P., Eschweiler, J., Gerlach-Hahn, K., Jansen-Troy, A., & Leonhardt, S. (2014). A survey on robotic devices for upper limb rehabilitation. Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, 11(1), 3. doi:10.1186/1743-0003-11-3
- Mayhew, D. J., & Mayhew, D. (1999). The usability engineering lifecycle: A practitioner’s handbook for user interface design. San Francisco, CA, USA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc.
- McAtamney, L., & Nigel Corlett, E. (1993). RULA: A survey method for the investigation of work-related upper limb disorders. Applied Ergonomics, 24(2), 91–99. doi:10.1016/0003-6870(93)90080-S
- OSHA Self-Inspection Checklist (2017). 27.
- Perry, J. C., Rosen, J., & Burns, S. (2007). Upper-limb powered exoskeleton design. IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics, 12(4), 408–417. doi:10.1109/TMECH.2007.901934
- Rabardel, P. (1995). Les hommes et les technologies; approche cognitive des instruments contemporains. 239.
- Rashedi, E., Kim, S., Nussbaum, M. A., & Agnew, M. J. (2014). Ergonomic evaluation of a wearable assistive device for overhead work. Ergonomics, 57(12), 1864–1874. doi:10.1080/00140139.2014.952682
- Redström, J. (2006). Towards user design? On the shift from object to user as the subject of design. Design Studies, 27(2), 123–139. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2005.06.001
- Skelex (s.d). Consulté 30 mai 2019, à l’adresse https://www.skelex.com/
- Spada, S., Ghibaudo, L., Gilotta, S., Gastaldi, L., & Cavatorta, M. P. (2017). Investigation into the applicability of a passive upper-limb exoskeleton in automotive industry. Procedia Manufacturing, 11, 1255–1262. doi:10.1016/j.promfg.2017.07.252
- Vardouli, T. (2015). Making use: Attitudes to human-artifact engagements. Design Studies, 41, 137–161. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2015.08.002
- Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540
- Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y. L., & Xu, X. (2012). Consumer Acceptance and Use of Information Technology: Extending the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (SSRN Scholarly Paper No ID 2002388). Consulté à l’adresse Social Science Research Network website: https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2002388