ArticleWearable technologies2023
Evaluating cognitive and physical work performance: A comparative study of an active and passive industrial back-support exoskeleton.
Article in Wearable technologies, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluating Exoskeletons for WMSD Prevention: A Systematic Review of Applications and Ergonomic Approach in Occupational Settings.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024Pooled it
- Effects of an active exoskeleton on the muscle activity of the erector spinae and biceps femoris muscles during lifting with symmetric stoop and squat technique.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Article
- Innovative Technologies to Improve Occupational Safety in Mining and Construction Industries-Part II.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Occupational back-support exoskeletons, categorized as active or passive, hold promise for mitigating work-related musculoskeletal disorders. However, their impact on combined physical and cognitive aspects of industrial work performance remains inadequately understood, especially regarding potential differences between exoskeleton categories. A randomized, counterbalanced cross-over study was conducted, comparing the active CrayX, passive Paexo Back, and a no exoskeleton condition. A 15-min dual task was used to simulate both cognitive and physical aspects of industrial work performance. Cognitive workload parameters included reaction time, accuracy, and subjective measures. Physical workload included movement duration, segmented in three phases: (1) walking to and grabbing the box, (2) picking up, carrying, and putting down the box, and (3) returning to the starting point. Comfort of both devices was also surveyed. The Paexo significantly increased movement duration in the first segment compared to NoExo (Paexo = 1.55 ± 0.19 s; NoExo = 1.32 ± 0.17 s;
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.