ArticleIEEE transactions on neural systems and rehabilitation engineering : a publication of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society2026
Evaluating Range of Motion of Two Prominent Neck Support Devices for Daily Activities.
Article in IEEE transactions on neural systems and rehabilitation engineering : a publication of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
Neck muscle weakness causes the inability to raise and move the head, leading to fatigue, neck pain, and a "head-on-chest" posture (dropped head syndrome) in severe cases, which significantly affects quality of life. Static neck collars are the current standard of care. However, these collars are passive, which cannot restore the head-neck movement necessary for daily tasks. Emerging robotic devices like powered neck exoskeletons were developed to enable head-neck movements. Previous laboratory tests showed improved patients' ability to follow prescribed trajectories; however, the ability to assist with daily tasks of such a robotic device remains unknown. In this paper, the functional range of motion allowed by a state-of-the-art powered neck exoskeleton was compared to a clinic-standard static neck collar in healthy adults performing simulated daily tasks wearing these devices. Results showed a greater head range of motion and consequently less compensatory torso movements while wearing the neck exoskeleton in its transparent mode. Participants rated the neck exoskeleton more favorably than the static collar in terms of comfort and ability to perform the tasks. Results also revealed the range of motion limits of the current neck exoskeleton for these daily tasks. These results provided justifications for using neck exoskeletons to restore daily functions and offered critical insights into future refinement of this technology to enable head range of motion for critical daily activities.
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.