ArticleFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2025
Biomechanical analysis of different lifting speeds when using an active exoskeleton.
Article in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 2025. 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.
- 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs), especially lower back pain, are common consequences of repetitive and long-term mechanical stress. Exoskeletons offer a promising approach to reduce this stress by supporting the wearer during physical labour. This study investigated the effect of an active exoskeleton (Apogee) on muscle activation and joint kinematics during load lifting at different lifting speeds and exoskeleton support levels. Methods: Sixteen healthy young adults (8 male, 8 female) lifted a 15 kg box at two lifting speeds (9 and 12 lifting cycles/min) and four support levels: 1) without exoskeleton, 2) exoskeleton in passive mode, 3) 50% support and 20% counterforce, 4) 100% support and 60% counterforce. Muscle activity was measured in the M. erector spinae (MES), M. biceps femoris (MBF) and M. vastus medialis (MVM) using EMG. Furthermore, joint range of motion (ROM) in the ankle, knee and hip were analysed using 3D motion capture. Results: Faster lifting significantly (p < 0.05) increased MBF (by 4.0% ± 1.5% maximum voluntary contraction, MVC) and MVM (1.6% ± 0.7% MVC) activity, while MES remained unaffected. The highest support level led to a significant decrease in MES and MBF activity by about 22.3% MVC and 10.6% MVC, respectively, as well as a small increase in hip joint ROM by 6° compared to lifting without exoskeleton support. There was no interaction between the level of support and lifting speed. Discussion: The decrease in MES activity of 22.3% MVC with full support suggests a potent reduction in spinal load. MBF activity increased less with higher speeds when support was applied. The MVM showed low and stable activity across all conditions. These findings suggest that the active exoskeleton Apogee provides support regardless of lifting speed and may help prevent MSDs in occupational settings. Users can adjust support levels based on task requirements and personal comfort.
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.