Electromyography-based fatigue assessment of an upper body exoskeleton during automotive assembly
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The purpose of this study was to assess an upper body exoskeleton during automotive assembly processes that involve elevated arm postures. Sixteen team members at Toyota Motor Manufacturing Canada were fitted with a Levitate Airframe, and each team member performed between one and three processes with and without the exoskeleton. A total of 16 assembly processes were studied. Electromyography (EMG) data were collected on the anterior deltoid, biceps brachii, upper trapezius, and erector spinae. Team members also completed a usability survey. The exoskeleton significantly reduced anterior deltoid mean active EMG amplitude ( p = .01, Δ = −3.2 %MVC, d = 0.56 medium effect) and fatigue risk value ( p < .01, Δ = −5.1 %MVC, d = 0.62 medium effect) across the assembly processes, with no significant changes for the other muscles tested. A subset of nine assembly processes with a greater amount of time spent in arm elevations at or above 90° (30 vs. 24%) and at or above 135° (18 vs. 9%) appeared to benefit more from exoskeleton usage. For these processes, the exoskeleton significantly reduced anterior deltoid mean active EMG amplitude ( p < .01, Δ = −5.1 %MVC, d = 0.95 large effect) and fatigue risk value ( p < .01, Δ = −7.4 %MVC, d = 0.96 large effect). Team members responded positively about comfort and fatigue benefits, although there were concerns about the exoskeleton hindering certain job duties. The results support quantitative testing to match exoskeleton usage with specific job tasks and surveying team members for perceived benefits/drawbacks.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".