Psychophysical estimates guidelines for maximal acceptable loads during unilateral overhead work while wearing an exoskeleton in construction workers
- 1Canadian Institute for Safety, Wellness, and Performance, Cambridge, Ontario, Canada
Abstract
Introduction: This study examined how passive shoulder exoskeletons, body archetype, sex, and shoulder elevation influence maximal drill-weight selection during overhead tasks. Methods: Twenty-nine construction workers (11 females, 18 males) completed high-frequency drilling every 12 seconds at a target force of 70 N across three shoulder elevations (90°, 120°, 150°), each performed for 5 minutes with and without a passive exoskeleton. Participant anthropometrics were captured using a 3D body scanner, and body archetypes were derived through k cluster analysis following variable extraction. A Psychophysical approach was used to determine maximal acceptable drill weight. Results: Mixed linear regression showed exoskeleton use increased selected weight by 336 g (~18%) (p < 0.001) compared to not wearing an exoskeleton. Smaller body archetypes selected 317 g (~17%) less than larger builds (p < 0.001), while medium builds showed no difference (p = 0.63). Males selected weights 300 g (~16%) heavier than females (p = 0.030). Shoulder elevation had no significant effect. Conclusions: These findings highlight key anthropometric and equipment related factors shaping overhead task demands.
Related
- Pediatric palliative care research participation: do adolescent and adult patients and caregivers find it acceptable?
- Designing acceptable, feasible and engaging social prescribing pathways: the case of connecting from general practice to ‘Golf for Health’
- Therapists' perspectives on the use of an overground lower-limb exoskeleton in physiotherapy sessions for minimally ambulatory children with cerebral palsy: a qualitative study
- Rehabilitation programme for post-stroke lateropulsion including exoskeleton-assisted training: rationale and single-case experimental design protocol
- When Is Maltreatment 'Acceptable'? Cross-Cultural Patterns in Child Maltreatment Exposure and its Perceived Social Acceptability Across 13 Countries and Regions
BibTeX
@article{valerio2026psychophysical,
title = {{Psychophysical estimates guidelines for maximal acceptable loads during unilateral overhead work while wearing an exoskeleton in construction workers}},
author = {Maria Cristina Herrera Valerio and Mohammad Howard-Azzeh and Marcus Yung and Amin Yazdani},
journal = {PLOS One},
year = {2026},
month = sep,
doi = {10.1371/journal.pone.0357036},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0357036},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Psychophysical estimates guidelines for maximal acceptable loads during unilateral overhead work while wearing an exoskeleton in construction workers
AU - Maria Cristina Herrera Valerio
AU - Mohammad Howard-Azzeh
AU - Marcus Yung
AU - Amin Yazdani
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/09/23
JO - PLOS One
DO - 10.1371/journal.pone.0357036
UR - https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0357036
AB - Introduction: This study examined how passive shoulder exoskeletons, body archetype, sex, and shoulder elevation influence maximal drill-weight selection during overhead tasks. Methods: Twenty-nine construction workers (11 females, 18 males) completed high-frequency drilling every 12 seconds at a target force of 70 N across three shoulder elevations (90°, 120°, 150°), each performed for 5 minutes with and without a passive exoskeleton. Participant anthropometrics were captured using a 3D body scanner, and body archetypes were derived through k cluster analysis following variable extraction. A Psychophysical approach was used to determine maximal acceptable drill weight. Results: Mixed linear regression showed exoskeleton use increased selected weight by 336 g (~18%) (p < 0.001) compared to not wearing an exoskeleton. Smaller body archetypes selected 317 g (~17%) less than larger builds (p < 0.001), while medium builds showed no difference (p = 0.63). Males selected weights 300 g (~16%) heavier than females (p = 0.030). Shoulder elevation had no significant effect. Conclusions: These findings highlight key anthropometric and equipment related factors shaping overhead task demands.
SN - 1932-6203
ER -