Search

The digital world has recently experienced a swift rise in worldwide popularity due to Virtual (VR) and Augmented Reality (AR) devices. However, concrete evidence about the effects of VR/AR devices on the physical workload imposed on the human body is lacking. We reviewed 27 articles that evaluated the physical impact of VR/AR-based tasks on the users using biomechanical sensing equipment and subjective tools. Findings revealed that movement and muscle demands (neck and shoulder) varied in seven and five studies while using VR, while in four and three studies during AR use, respectively, compared to traditional methods. User discomfort was also found in seven VR and three AR studies. Outcomes indicate that interface and interaction design, precisely target locations (gestures, viewing), design of virtual elements, and device type (location of CG as in Head-Mounted Displays) influence these alterations in neck and shoulder regions. Recommendations based on the review include developing comfortable reach envelopes for gestures, improving wearability, and studying temporal effects of repetitive movements (such as effects on fatigue and stability). Finally, a guideline is provided to assist researchers in conducting effective evaluations. The presented findings from this review could benefit designers/evaluations working towards developing more effective VR/AR products. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Industrial tasks that involve frequent sitting/standing transitions and squatting activities can benefit from lower-limb industrial exoskeletons; however, their use is not as widespread as their upper-body counterparts. In this review, we examined 23 articles that evaluated the effects of using Wearable Chair (WC) and Squat-assist (SA) exoskeletons. Evaluations mainly included assessment of muscular demands in the thigh, shank, and upper/lower back regions. Both types of devices were found to lessen muscular demands in the lower body by 30–90%. WCs also reduced low-back demands (~ 37%) and plantar pressure (54–80%) but caused discomfort/unsafe feeling in participants. To generalize outcomes, we suggest standardizing approaches used for evaluating the devices. Along with addressing low adoption through design upgrades (e.g., ground and body supports/attachments), we recommend that researchers thoroughly evaluate temporal effects on muscle fatigue, metabolic rate, and stability of wearers. Although lower-limb exoskeletons were found to be beneficial, discrepancies in experimental protocols (posture/task/measures) were discovered. We also suggest simulating more realistic conditions, such as walking/sitting interchangeability for WCs and lifting loads for SA devices. The presented outcomes could help improve the design/evaluation approaches, and implementation of lower limb wearable devices across industries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

With rising manual work demands, physical assistance at the workplace is crucial, wherein the use of industrial exoskeletons (i-EXOs) could be advantageous. However, outcomes of numerous laboratory studies may not be directly translated to field environments. To explore this discrepancy, we conducted a systematic review including 31 studies to identify and compare the approaches, techniques, and outcomes within field assessments of shoulder and back support i-EXOs. Findings revealed that the subjective approaches [i.e., discomfort (23), usability (22), acceptance/perspectives (21), risk of injury (8), posture (3), perceived workload (2)] were reported more common (27) compared to objective (15) approaches [muscular demand (14), kinematics (8), metabolic costs (5)]. High variability was also observed in the experimental methodologies, including control over activity, task physics/duration, sample size, and reported metrics/measures. In the current study, the detailed approaches, their subject-related factors, and observed trends have been discussed. In sum, a new guideline, including tools/technologies has been proposed that could be utilized for field evaluation of i-EXOs. Lastly, we discussed some of the common technical challenges experimenters face in evaluating i-EXOs in field environments. Efforts presented in this study seek to improve the generalizability in testing and implementing i-EXOs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]