ArticleEuropean journal of applied physiology2026
Impact of an occupational back-support exoskeleton on muscle synergies during a pick-up movement.
Article in European journal of applied physiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Evaluating Different Optimization Criteria for Estimating Spine Loads and Muscle Activity During Manual Lifting With and Without Assistance from Back-Support Exoskeletons.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeWhile passive back-support exoskeletons have been shown to reduce back-muscle activity during laboratory-simulated tasks, their influence on motor control is still unclear. The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of a passive back-support exoskeleton on muscle synergies, the predefined groups of coordinated muscle activations used by the central nervous system to produce natural movements.
methodsNineteen participants performed several pick-up tasks with 500 g weights, with and without a back-exoskeleton. During these trials, surface electromyography of eight muscles involved in the task was recorded. Muscle synergies were then extracted from these signals using non-negative matrix factorization. For each participant, we computed silhouette scores and performed statistical tests to evaluate the distinction between synergies extracted from the trials with and without the exoskeleton.
resultsTwo to three muscle synergies were sufficient to account for the activations of the eight muscles during the movements. The inter-participant clustering of the mean synergies indicated that participants used subjective motor strategies to perform the task, and the silhouette scores highlighted differences between synergies of the two conditions for 70.6% of the participants.
conclusionOur findings indicate that an exoskeleton can lead to a modification of muscle recruitment patterns. However, the impact of the exoskeleton on muscle synergies differed among participants, which highlights the importance of the wearer's experience and adaptation to the equipment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40885879What 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.