Okunola, A; Akanmu, A A and Yusuf, A O (2025) Comparison of active and passive back-support exoskeletons for construction work: Range of motion, discomfort, usability, exertion and cognitive load assessments. Smart and Sustainable Built Environment, 14(3), pp. 582-598. ISSN 2046-6099
Abstract
Purpose: Low back disorders are more predominant among construction trade workers than their counterparts in other industry sectors. Floor layers are among the top artisans that are severely affected by low back disorders. Exoskeletons are increasingly being perceived as ergonomic solutions. This study aims to compare the efficacy of passive and active back-support exoskeletons by measuring range of motion, perceived discomfort, usability, perceived rate of exertion and cognitive load during a simulated flooring task experiment. Design/methodology/approach: In this study eight participants were engaged in a repetitive timber flooring task performed with passive and active back-support exoskeletons. Subjective and objective data were collected to assess the risks associated with using both exoskeletons. Descriptive statistics were used for analysis. Scheirer-Ray-Hare test and Wilcoxon signed-rank test were adopted to compare the exoskeleton conditions. Findings: The results show no significant differences in the range of motion (except for a lifting cycle), perceived level of discomfort and perceived level of exertion between the two exoskeletons. Significant difference in overall cognitive load was observed. The usability results show that the active back-support exoskeleton made task execution easier with less restriction on movement. Research limitations/implications: The flooring task is simulated in a laboratory environment with only eight male participants. Originality/value: This study contributes to the scarce body of knowledge on the usage comparison of passive and active exoskeletons for construction work.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | cognitive load; ergonomic risks; exoskeleton; flooring task; low back disorders; usability |
| Index terms: | discomfort, floor layer, statistics, construction work, experiment, usability, industry sector, movement, laboratory, body of knowledge, lifting, methodology |
| Subjects: | research methods, research management, health behaviours and lifestyles, practitioner, operations management, knowledge management, health risk and incident analysis, occupational health and safety management, industry analysis, mathematical modelling, user-centered design, data collection methods |
| Topics: | Project Management, Health and Safety, Design Practice, Information Management, Research Practice, Roles and Professions |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here