Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 43 references

A Novel Passive Occupational Shoulder Exoskeleton With Adjustable Peak Assistive Torque Angle For Overhead Tasks

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A passive shoulder exoskeleton with an adjustable peak assistive torque angle cuts muscle activation by up to 49.6% while preserving range of motion.

desk verdict Solid hardware paper with a real novelty in adjustable torque phase, but the central PATA claim is only simulated, not measured, so the Match/Mismatch result is weaker than it looks. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.13770 v2 pith:KLLNOOKT submitted 2024-11-21 cs.RO

Jin Tian , Haiqi Zhu , Changjia Lu , Chifu Yang , Yingjie Liu , Baichun Wei , Chunzhi Yi This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO
keywords passiveshoulderexoskeletonoverheadworkpeakassistivetorqueanglemuscleactivationrangeofmotionkinematiccompatibilitygeneratorwork-relatedmusculoskeletaldisorders
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Overhead work strains the shoulder, and passive exoskeletons that compensate arm weight are a practical industrial fix, but most are built for one task with a fixed torque profile that peaks at one arm angle. This paper proposes a passive shoulder exoskeleton, HIT-POSE, whose peak assistive torque angle can be adjusted by moving pulleys along a guide rail, so the same device can be reconfigured for tasks at different shoulder elevations without being rebuilt. In ten participants doing a screwing task at two heights, the exoskeleton matched to the task reduced muscle activation in all eight monitored muscles (relative reduction up to 49.6%) and lowered perceived effort and frustration, while measured shoulder range of motion stayed statistically unchanged. The significance, if the result holds, is that one lightweight passive exoskeleton could adapt across overhead tasks and individual body sizes, making the assistive technology more usable and effective in real workplaces.

What carries the argument

The enabling mechanism is a cable-and-pulley torque generator with a passive clutch: a wire rope connects a parallel spring group to the sagittal F/E joint bar, storing elastic energy as the arm lowers and releasing it as the arm raises. The assistive torque is $\tau_{\mathrm{exo}} = F_s L_{\mathrm{exo}}$, with spring force $F_s = K\Delta L$ and moment arm $L_{\mathrm{exo}}$. Because the peak of the torque profile is dominated by the moment arm's geometry, moving pulleys 3 and 4 along a guide rail changes angle $\beta$ and shifts the peak assistive torque angle according to $\theta_{\mathrm{PATA}} = \theta_0 + \alpha - k\beta$ (with $\theta_0 \approx 80°$ and $k \approx 1$), while $\alpha$ sets the critical angle between the low- and high-assistance phases. The shoulder structure itself is a two-degree-of-freedom linkage whose design parameters ($\phi$, $d_v$, $d_b$) were chosen from kinematic simulation to keep the exoskeleton compact while avoiding collision at high elevation angles, preserving the user's range of motion.

What would settle it

Mount the exoskeleton on a test rig, measure the output torque at the shoulder with a load cell while sweeping the sagittal angle, and compare the measured peak angle to $\theta_{\mathrm{PATA}} = \theta_0 + \alpha - k\beta$ across the advertised pulley travel; a systematic offset larger than the angle difference between the Match and Mismatch conditions would collapse the explanation of the EMG differences.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the timing of peak assistive torque is a tunable, task-relevant degree of freedom for passive shoulder exoskeletons, and that tuning it correctly is what makes assistance efficient. The HIT-POSE generates torque with a parallel spring group routed through pulleys to a sagittal flexion/extension joint bar, and the peak angle is shifted by changing the angle β of a movable pulley pair, following θ_PATA = θ0 + α − kβ. In the experimental screwing task, when the set peak assistive torque angle matched the task's target shoulder angle, all eight measured muscles showed significantly reduced activation (absolute reductions 15.6% to 23.8%, relative reductions up to 49.6%), roughly double the reduction seen in the mismatched configuration. The same match conditions also produced significantly lower perceived exertion, physical demand, effort, and frustration, with a System Usability Scale score of 79.7. The authors read these results as evidence that the exoskeleton can provide natural range of motion and efficient, adaptable assistance for overhead work, thereby reducing the risk of work-related musculoskeletal disorders.

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes the actual torque-angle curve matches the ideal geometric model of Section II-C, with no friction, no cable deformation, and coefficient k near 1, so the adjusted peak angle really lands at the intended arm angle; no direct torque measurement is reported.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the PATA-adjustment mechanism works as modeled, one passive exoskeleton can cover overhead tasks at different arm angles by moving pulleys along a guide rail, instead of rebuilding the device for each task.
  • In the match condition, muscle activation dropped by at least about 15% absolutely and 30% relatively across all eight monitored muscles, and match reductions were about double the mismatch reductions, indicating that alignment of peak torque timing, not merely wearing the device, drives the benefit.
  • Measured maximum sagittal and horizontal shoulder flexion/extension angles with the exoskeleton (164.46° and 158.28°) were statistically indistinguishable from bare-shoulder values, so the compact shoulder structure does not restrict range of motion.
  • Perceived exertion and the physical-demand, effort, and frustration components of perceived workload improved significantly in the match condition, and the 79.7 System Usability Scale score supports acceptance in industrial settings.
  • The reduced muscle activation, including in the erector spinae, implies lower biomechanical load on the shoulder girdle and back, and therefore the potential to reduce the incidence of work-related musculoskeletal disorders with long-term use.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Beyond the paper, the strongest test of the thesis would be a bench test that directly measures the exoskeleton's torque-angle curve; if real friction, cable stretch, or pulley behavior shifts the measured peak angle, the advertised 90° to 150° PATA range may be narrower in practice.
  • The PATA formula and parameter sensitivity analysis suggest that individualized assistance could be set from simple anthropometric measurements such as arm length and target elevation, enabling a lookup-table style tuning procedure for workers of different heights without iterative trial-and-error.
  • The passive-clutch concept could generalize to other joints: any task with a dominant gravitational load and a well-defined peak torque angle, such as hip or lumbar support during lifting, could use the same movable-pulley phase-shift mechanism.
  • Because the mismatched configuration still reduced activation in most muscles but not in pectoralis major or latissimus dorsi, a poorly timed torque profile may spare some muscles while leaving stabilizers unevenly loaded; future studies could test whether mismatch profiles create uneven muscle loading.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a passive occupational shoulder exoskeleton (HIT-POSE) with an adjustable peak assistive torque angle (PATA) for overhead tasks. The design combines an ergonomic shoulder structure selected via kinematic simulation and a cable-pulley-spring torque generator whose PATA can be changed by moving pulleys along a guide rail. The authors report ROM measurements showing no significant restriction relative to no exoskeleton, and a 10-participant experimental study of a screwing task in which muscle activation, perceived effort, and frustration were reduced in the 'Match' condition (PATA aligned with the task angle) compared with both 'Mismatch' and no-exoskeleton conditions. The central claim is that the adjustable PATA enables efficient assistance across different overhead task angles.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the HIT-POSE would represent a useful step toward task-adaptable passive exoskeletons, addressing a recognized limitation of fixed torque-profile devices. The paper's strengths include direct ROM measurements with a motion-capture system, a randomized within-subject EMG protocol with eight muscles, and the inclusion of both objective and subjective outcomes. The ROM verification and the observation that Match conditions yield greater EMG reductions than Mismatch conditions are valuable empirical contributions. However, the load-bearing validation of the adjustable-PATA mechanism is currently incomplete: the torque-angle relationship is only modeled, not measured, and the experimental conditions are defined from that unverified model. The significance of the EMG results therefore depends on assumptions about the physical device that the manuscript does not yet establish.

major comments (3)
  1. [III-D and Table IV] The paper states that the Match and Mismatch configurations 'present the same peak torque but different PATAs,' yet Table IV indicates that β, the parameter used to change PATA, has a positive effect on peak torque in Phase II. The manuscript does not explain how peak torque was held constant while β was varied (e.g., whether Li or spring pretension was adjusted to compensate). Without this information, the observed EMG differences between Match and Mismatch conditions could be confounded by differences in torque amplitude rather than by PATA alignment. Please report the actual torque profiles of the two configurations or describe the compensation procedure in detail.
  2. [II-C, Eq. (4)] The PATA formula θ_PATA = θ0 + α - kβ relies on a coefficient k that is described only as 'a variable positive coefficient around 1' with no derivation or experimental identification. Since the Match and Mismatch conditions are defined by setting PATA to 90° and 120° from this formula, the validity of the entire experimental contrast rests on an unverified model parameter. A direct measurement of the assistive torque versus shoulder angle curve is needed to confirm that the physical device actually achieves the intended PATAs and that the two configurations differ only in PATA.
  3. [II-C and Fig. 9] The torque profile simulations explicitly assume an ideal situation with no cable deformation and no friction. In a real cable-pulley-spring mechanism, friction and cable compliance can shift the peak torque angle and alter the torque magnitude. The manuscript does not provide any bench-top torque measurement to quantify these deviations. Given that the central contribution is the adjustable PATA and its effect on assistance, the absence of any physical torque-angle validation leaves the central interpretation unsupported. I recommend adding a static or quasi-static torque measurement of the device for at least the two experimental configurations.
minor comments (6)
  1. [V-A] The text refers to 'Table ??' when discussing ROM results; this should be Table V.
  2. [II-C] In the first paragraph, 'PATA adjus module' appears to be a typo for 'PATA adjustment module.'
  3. [III-D] The abbreviation 'RPD' appears in Section V-D ('RPE, RPD, and PW') but is not defined earlier; the paper only defines RPE and the NASA-TLX subscales.
  4. [III-C] The hex key mass is given as 8.6 g, which seems quite light for an overhead screwing task; please verify that this value is correct or clarify whether the mass refers to the tool only.
  5. [IV-B and Fig. 13] For the pairwise EMG comparisons, only significance stars are shown; reporting test statistics or exact p-values would improve reproducibility and allow readers to assess effect sizes.
  6. [Fig. 8] The axes of Figure 8 are not labeled in the caption; adding axis names (e.g., β in degrees and PATA in degrees) would make the figure self-contained.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the adjustable-PATA design equation and the EMG/ROM experiments are independent, with no prediction reduced to a fitted input or self-citation chain.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is the geometric torque-generator model, culminating in the PATA formula θ_PATA = θ0 + α − kβ (Eq. 4), with k acknowledged as an approximate positive coefficient near 1. This is a semi-empirical design relation, but it is not fitted to the experimental outcome: the Match and Mismatch exoskeleton configurations are selected from this model before the EMG trials, and the muscle-activation reductions are measured independently of the model parameters. No load-bearing result is justified only by a self-citation, and the paper does not invoke a uniqueness theorem or ansatz imported from the authors' prior work. The ROM simulation selects design parameters and the subsequent ROM experiment tests that selection against measured human motion, which is a genuine validation step rather than a circular reduction. The lack of direct torque measurement and the approximate coefficient k are validity and generalizability concerns about how well the physical device matches the model, not evidence that the reported EMG differences are equivalent by construction to the model inputs. Accordingly, no circular step meeting the evidentiary standard is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on several chosen design parameters and on an unmeasured geometric model of the torque generator. No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (4)
  • phi (shoulder structure pitch angle) = 15 deg
    Chosen via ROM simulation to maximize shoulder range of motion; not independently derived.
  • dv (vertical distance from CSU to linkage) = 80 mm
    Selected from prior anatomical data and ROM simulation trade-off.
  • db (bias distance between CSE and CSU) = 10 mm
    Chosen as penultimate simulation set to avoid discomfort at large db; trade-off is qualitative.
  • k (PATA correction coefficient) = about 1
    Introduced in Eq. (4) as 'a variable positive coefficient around 1' to account for nonlinearity of Delta L; value not derived or measured.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Human shoulder can be modeled as a 2-DoF DH chain with intersecting horizontal and sagittal F/E axes.
    Used in Simulation I and DH tables; ignores other shoulder DoFs such as rotation and translation of CSU beyond literature values.
  • domain assumption Collision between exoskeleton and user occurs only when user joint angles exceed exoskeleton joint angles.
    Stated in Simulation I; this simplification ignores interference of links and soft tissue.
  • ad hoc to paper The assistive torque follows Fs = K Delta L with ideal massless cable, no friction, and no deformation.
    Used to derive torque profiles in Fig. 9; no bench test provided.
  • ad hoc to paper PATA is given by theta_PATA = theta0 + alpha - k beta with k approximately 1.
    Presented without derivation of k in Section II-C.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Novel Passive Occupational Shoulder Exoskeleton With Adjustable Peak Assistive Torque Angle For Overhead Tasks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KLLNOOKT

@misc{pith2026241113770,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Novel Passive Occupational Shoulder Exoskeleton With Adjustable Peak Assistive Torque Angle For Overhead Tasks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KLLNOOKT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.13770}
}
read the original abstract

Objective: Overhead tasks are a primary inducement to work-related musculoskeletal disorders. Aiming to reduce shoulder physical loads, passive shoulder exoskeletons are increasingly prevalent in the industry due to their lightweight, affordability, and effectiveness. However, they can only accommodate a specific task and cannot effectively balance between compactness and sufficient range of motion. Method: We proposed a novel passive occupational shoulder exoskeleton to handle various overhead tasks with different arm elevation angles and ensured a sufficient ROM while compactness. By formulating kinematic models and simulations, an ergonomic shoulder structure was developed. Then, we presented a torque generator equipped with an adjustable peak assistive torque angle to switch between low and high assistance phases through a passive clutch mechanism. Ten healthy participants were recruited to validate its functionality by performing the screwing task. Results: Measured range of motion results demonstrated that the exoskeleton can ensure a sufficient ROM in both sagittal (164{\deg}) and horizontal (158{\deg}) flexion/extension movements. The experimental results of the screwing task showed that the exoskeleton could reduce muscle activation (up to 49.6%), perceived effort and frustration, and provide an improved user experience (scored 79.7 out of 100). Conclusion: These results indicate that the proposed exoskeleton can guarantee natural movements and provide efficient assistance during overhead work, and thus have the potential to reduce the risk of musculoskeletal disorders. Significance: The proposed exoskeleton provides insights into multi-task adaptability and efficient assistance, highlighting the potential for expanding the application of exoskeletons.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Global estimates of the need for rehabilitation based on the global burden of disease study 2019: a systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study 2019,

    A. Cieza et al. , “Global estimates of the need for rehabilitation based on the global burden of disease study 2019: a systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study 2019,” Lancet., vol. 396, no. 10267, pp. 2006–2017, Dec. 2020

    2019

  2. [2]

    Muscle fatigue: what, why and how it influences muscle function,

    R. M. Enoka and J. Duchateau, “Muscle fatigue: what, why and how it influences muscle function,” J. Physiol., vol. 586, no. 1, pp. 11–23, Jan. 2008

    2008

  3. [3]

    Work-related musculoskeletal disorders among con- struction workers in the united states from 1992 to 2014,

    X. Wang et al. , “Work-related musculoskeletal disorders among con- struction workers in the united states from 1992 to 2014,” Occupat. Environ. Med., vol. 74, no. 5, pp. 374–380, Apr. 2017

    work page 1992

  4. [4]

    Criteria document for evaluating the work- relatedness of upper-extremity musculoskeletal disorders,

    J. K. Sluiter et al. , “Criteria document for evaluating the work- relatedness of upper-extremity musculoskeletal disorders,” Scand. J. Work. Environ. Health., vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 1–102, 2001

    work page 2001

  5. [5]

    A lightweight shoulder exoskeleton with a series elastic actuator for assisting overhead work,

    S. Ding et al., “A lightweight shoulder exoskeleton with a series elastic actuator for assisting overhead work,”IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatronics., vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 1030–1040, Apr. 2024

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Evaluation of a passive exoskeleton for static upper limb activities,

    K. Huysamen et al., “Evaluation of a passive exoskeleton for static upper limb activities,” Appl. Ergonom., vol. 70, pp. 148–155, Jul. 2018

    2018

  7. [7]

    Shoulder-sidewinder (shoulder-side wearable industrial ergonomic robot): Design and evaluation of shoulder wearable robot with mechanisms to compensate for joint misalignment,

    D. Park et al. , “Shoulder-sidewinder (shoulder-side wearable industrial ergonomic robot): Design and evaluation of shoulder wearable robot with mechanisms to compensate for joint misalignment,” IEEE Trans. Robot., vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 1460–1471, Jun. 2022

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Kinematics-based control of an inflatable soft wearable robot for assisting the shoulder of industrial workers,

    Y . M. Zhou et al. , “Kinematics-based control of an inflatable soft wearable robot for assisting the shoulder of industrial workers,” IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett. , vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 2155–2162, Apr. 2021

    work page 2021

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

    Kinematics-based adaptive assistance of a semi-passive upper-limb exoskeleton for workers in static and dynamic tasks,

    L. Grazi et al., “Kinematics-based adaptive assistance of a semi-passive upper-limb exoskeleton for workers in static and dynamic tasks,” IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett. , vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 8675–8682, Oct. 2022

    2022

  2. [10]

    Evaluation of a novel active exoskeleton for tasks at or above head level,

    B. M. Otten et al. , “Evaluation of a novel active exoskeleton for tasks at or above head level,” IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett. , vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 2408–2415, Jul. 2018

    2018

  3. [11]

    A passive upper limb exoskeleton with tilted and offset shoulder joints for assisting overhead tasks,

    J. Kim et al. , “A passive upper limb exoskeleton with tilted and offset shoulder joints for assisting overhead tasks,” IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatronics., vol. 27, no. 6, pp. 4963–4973, Dec. 2022

    2022

  4. [12]

    Design and experimental evaluation of a semi-passive upper-limb exoskeleton for workers with motorized tuning of assistance,

    L. Grazi et al. , “Design and experimental evaluation of a semi-passive upper-limb exoskeleton for workers with motorized tuning of assistance,” IEEE Trans. Neural. Syst. Rehabil. Eng. , vol. 28, no. 10, pp. 2276–2285, Oct. 2020

    2020

  5. [13]

    Exoskeletons for workers: A case series study in an enclosures production line,

    I. Pacifico et al. , “Exoskeletons for workers: A case series study in an enclosures production line,” Appl. Ergonom., vol. 101, p. 103679, May. 2022

    2022

  6. [14]

    Passive shoulder exoskeletons: More effective in the lab than in the field?

    S. De Bock et al., “Passive shoulder exoskeletons: More effective in the lab than in the field?” IEEE Trans. Neural. Syst. Rehabil. Eng. , vol. 29, pp. 173–183, Dec. 2020

    2020

  7. [15]

    Passive shoulder exoskeleton support partially mit- igates fatigue-induced effects in overhead work,

    S. DeBock et al. , “Passive shoulder exoskeleton support partially mit- igates fatigue-induced effects in overhead work,” Appl. Ergonom. , vol. 106, p. 103903, Jan. 2023

    2023

  8. [16]

    Ergonomics assessment of passive upper-limb exoskele- tons in an automotive assembly plant,

    S. Iranzo et al., “Ergonomics assessment of passive upper-limb exoskele- tons in an automotive assembly plant,” Appl. Ergonom. , vol. 87, p. 103120, Sep. 2020

    2020

  9. [17]

    Shoulder muscle activity and perceived comfort of industry workers using a commercial upper limb exoskeleton for simulated tasks,

    J. P. Pinho and A. Forner-Cordero, “Shoulder muscle activity and perceived comfort of industry workers using a commercial upper limb exoskeleton for simulated tasks,” Appl. Ergonom. , vol. 101, p. 103718, May. 2022

    2022

  10. [18]

    Effects of a passive upper extremity exoskeleton for overhead tasks,

    P. Yin et al. , “Effects of a passive upper extremity exoskeleton for overhead tasks,” J. Electromyogr . Kinesiol. , vol. 55, p. 102478, Dec. 2020

    2020

  11. [19]

    Assessing the influence of a passive, upper extremity ex- oskeletal vest for tasks requiring arm elevation: Part i–“expected

    S. Kim et al., “Assessing the influence of a passive, upper extremity ex- oskeletal vest for tasks requiring arm elevation: Part i–“expected” effects on discomfort, shoulder muscle activity, and work task performance,” Appl. Ergonom., vol. 70, pp. 315–322, Jul. 2018

    2018

  12. [20]

    Influence of different passive shoulder exoskele- tons on shoulder and torso muscle activation during simulated horizontal and vertical aircraft squeeze riveting tasks,

    M. J. Jorgensen et al., “Influence of different passive shoulder exoskele- tons on shoulder and torso muscle activation during simulated horizontal and vertical aircraft squeeze riveting tasks,” Appl. Ergonom. , vol. 104, p. 103822, Oct. 2022

    2022

  13. [21]

    The impact of passive shoulder exoskeletons during simulated aircraft manufacturing sealing tasks,

    M. Jorgensen et al., “The impact of passive shoulder exoskeletons during simulated aircraft manufacturing sealing tasks,” Int. J. Ind. Ergonom. , vol. 91, p. 103337, Sep. 2022. AUTHOR et al.: PREP ARA TION OF BRIEF P APERS FOR IEEE TRANSACTIONS AND JOURNALS (DECEMBER 2023) 11

    2022

  14. [22]

    A light-weight passive upper arm assistive exoskeleton based on multi-linkage spring-energy dissipation mechanism for over- head tasks,

    D. J. Hyun et al., “A light-weight passive upper arm assistive exoskeleton based on multi-linkage spring-energy dissipation mechanism for over- head tasks,” Rob. Auton. Syst. , vol. 122, p. 103309, Dec. 2019

    2019

  15. [23]

    Design and evaluation of a passive cable-driven occupational shoulder exoskeleton,

    M. Rossini et al. , “Design and evaluation of a passive cable-driven occupational shoulder exoskeleton,” IEEE Trans. Med. Robot. Bionics. , vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 1020–1031, Nov. 2021

    2021

  16. [24]

    Level of exoskeleton support influences shoulder elevation, external rotation and forearm pronation during simulated work tasks in females,

    T. C. McFarland et al., “Level of exoskeleton support influences shoulder elevation, external rotation and forearm pronation during simulated work tasks in females,” Appl. Ergonom., vol. 98, p. 103591, Jan. 2022

    2022

  17. [25]

    An experimental evaluation of the proto-mate: a novel ergonomic upper-limb exoskeleton to reduce workers’ physical strain,

    I. Pacifico et al., “An experimental evaluation of the proto-mate: a novel ergonomic upper-limb exoskeleton to reduce workers’ physical strain,” IEEE Robot. Automat. Mag. , vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 54–65, Mar. 2020

    2020

  18. [26]

    An occupational shoulder exoskeleton reduces muscle activity and fatigue during overhead work,

    S. De Bock et al., “An occupational shoulder exoskeleton reduces muscle activity and fatigue during overhead work,” IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. , vol. 69, no. 10, pp. 3008–3020, Oct. 2022

    2022

  19. [27]

    Objective and subjective effects of a passive exoskele- ton on overhead work,

    P. Maurice et al., “Objective and subjective effects of a passive exoskele- ton on overhead work,” IEEE Trans. Neural. Syst. Rehabil. Eng. , vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 152–164, Jan. 2019

    2019

  20. [28]

    Analysis and preliminary design of a passive upper limb exoskeleton,

    G. Vazzoler et al. , “Analysis and preliminary design of a passive upper limb exoskeleton,” IEEE Trans. Med. Robot. Bionics. , vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 558–569, Aug. 2022

    2022

  21. [29]

    Motion of the shoulder complex during multi- planar humeral elevation,

    P. M. Ludewig et al. , “Motion of the shoulder complex during multi- planar humeral elevation,” J. Bone. Joint. Surg. Am. , vol. 91, no. 2, pp. 378–389, Feb. 2009

    2009

  22. [30]

    The glenohumeral joint rotation centre in vivo,

    M. Stokdijk et al. , “The glenohumeral joint rotation centre in vivo,” J. Biomech., vol. 33, no. 12, pp. 1629–1636, Dec. 2000

    2000

  23. [31]

    Estimation for rotated center of shoulder in human upper limb dynamic motion measurement,

    Z. Liu et al., “Estimation for rotated center of shoulder in human upper limb dynamic motion measurement,” Journal of Tianjin University of Science and Technology , vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 55–58, 2007

    2007

  24. [32]

    Armin iii–arm therapy exoskeleton with an ergonomic shoulder actuation,

    T. Nef et al. , “Armin iii–arm therapy exoskeleton with an ergonomic shoulder actuation,” Appl. Bionics. Biomech. , vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 127–142, Jun. 2009

    2009

  25. [33]

    Development of recommendations for semg sensors and sensor placement procedures,

    H. J. Hermens et al. , “Development of recommendations for semg sensors and sensor placement procedures,” J. Electromyogr . Kinesiol., vol. 10, no. 5, pp. 361–374, Oct. 2000

    2000

  26. [34]

    Nasa-task load index (nasa-tlx); 20 years later,

    S. G. Hart, “Nasa-task load index (nasa-tlx); 20 years later,” in Proc. Hum. Factors Ergonom. Soc. Annu. Meeting. , vol. 50, no. 9. Sage publications Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA, Oct. 2006, pp. 904–908

    2006

  27. [35]

    Psychophysical scaling with applications in physical work and the perception of exertion,

    G. Borg, “Psychophysical scaling with applications in physical work and the perception of exertion,” Scandin. J. Work. Environ. Health. , vol. 16, pp. 55–58, 1990

    1990

  28. [36]

    Sus - a quick and dirty usability scale,

    J. Brooke, “Sus - a quick and dirty usability scale,” Usability Eval. Ind. , vol. 189, no. 194, pp. 4–7, 1996

    1996

  29. [37]

    Evaluation of a spring-loaded upper-limb exoskeleton in cleaning activities,

    I. Pacifico et al., “Evaluation of a spring-loaded upper-limb exoskeleton in cleaning activities,” Appl. Ergonom., vol. 106, p. 103877, 2023

    2023

  30. [38]

    Biomechanical and metabolic effectiveness of an industrial exoskeleton for overhead work,

    T. Schmalz et al. , “Biomechanical and metabolic effectiveness of an industrial exoskeleton for overhead work,” Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health., vol. 16, no. 23, p. 4792, 2019

    2019

  31. [39]

    Evaluation of an adjustable support shoulder exoskeleton on static and dynamic overhead tasks,

    L. Van Engelhoven et al., “Evaluation of an adjustable support shoulder exoskeleton on static and dynamic overhead tasks,” in Proc. Hum. Fac- tors Ergonom. Soc. Annu. Meeting. , vol. 62, no. 1. SAGE Publications Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA, 2018, pp. 804–808

    2018

  32. [40]

    Evaluation of paexo, a novel passive exoskeleton for overhead work,

    P. Maurice et al. , “Evaluation of paexo, a novel passive exoskeleton for overhead work,” Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin. , vol. 22, no. sup1, pp. S448–S450, May. 2019

    2019

  33. [41]

    Dynamic glenohumeral stability provided by three heads of the deltoid muscle,

    S.-B. Lee and K.-N. An, “Dynamic glenohumeral stability provided by three heads of the deltoid muscle,” Clin. Orthopaedics Rel. Res. , vol. 400, pp. 40–47, Jul. 2002

    2002

  34. [42]

    Biomechanical changes, acceptance, and usability of a passive shoulder exoskeleton in manual material handling. a field study,

    L. S. Jakobsen et al., “Biomechanical changes, acceptance, and usability of a passive shoulder exoskeleton in manual material handling. a field study,” Appl. Ergonom., vol. 113, p. 104104, Nov. 2023

    2023

  35. [43]

    An empirical evaluation of the system usability scale,

    A. Bangor et al., “An empirical evaluation of the system usability scale,” Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact. , vol. 24, no. 6, pp. 574–594, Jul. 2008

    2008

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.