ArticleWearable technologies2024
The effect of active exoskeleton support with different lumbar-to-hip support ratios on spinal musculoskeletal loading and lumbar kinematics during lifting.
Article in Wearable technologies, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Integrating Evaluation into Exoskeleton Systems: A Model-Based Approach.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Soft back exosuit controlled by neuro-mechanical modeling provides adaptive assistance while lifting unknown loads and reduces lumbosacral compression forces.Wearable technologies · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
While active back-support exoskeletons can reduce mechanical loading of the spine, current designs include only one pair of actuated hip joints combined with a rigid structure between the pelvis and trunk attachments, restricting lumbar flexion and consequently intended lifting behavior. This study presents a novel active exoskeleton including actuated lumbar and hip joints as well as subject-specific exoskeleton control based on a real-time active low-back moment estimation. We evaluated the effect of exoskeleton support with different lumbar-to-hip (L/H) support ratios on spine loading, lumbar kinematics, and back muscle electromyography (EMG). Eight healthy males lifted 15 kg loads using three techniques without exoskeleton (NOEXO) and with exoskeleton: minimal impedance mode (MINIMP), L/H support ratio in line with a typical L/H net moment ratio (R0.8), lower (R0.5) and higher (R2.0) L/H support ratio than R0.8, and a mechanically fixed lumbar joint (LF; simulating hip joint-only exoskeleton designs). EMG-driven musculoskeletal model results indicated that R0.8 and R0.5 yielded significant reductions in spinal loading (4-11%, p < .004) across techniques when compared to MINIMP, through reducing active moments (14-30%) while not affecting lumbar flexion and passive moments. R2.0 and LF significantly reduced spinal loading (8-17%, p < .001; 22-26%, p < .001, respectively), however significantly restricted lumbar flexion (3-18%, 24-27%, respectively) and the associated passive moments. An L/H support ratio in line with a typical L/H net moment ratio reduces spinal loading, while allowing normal lifting behavior. High L/H support ratios (e.g., in hip joint-only exoskeleton designs) yield reductions in spinal loading, however, restrict lifting behavior, typically perceived as hindrance.
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.