Usability of back support, shoulder support and sit-stand passive occupational exoskeletons: A heuristic evaluation of the designs
August 05, 2024 Β· Declared Dead Β· π arXiv.org
"No code URL or promise found in abstract"
Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner
Authors
Alejandra Martinez, Laura Tovar, Carla Irigoyen Amparan, Karen Gonzalez, Prajina Edayath, Priyadarshini Pennathur, Arunkumar Pennathur
arXiv ID
2408.02852
Category
cs.HC: Human-Computer Interaction
Citations
0
Venue
arXiv.org
Last Checked
5 months ago
Abstract
Occupational exoskeletons promise to alleviate musculoskeletal injuries among industrial workers. Knowledge of the usability of the exoskeleton designs with respect to the user device interaction points, and the problems in design features, functions and parts, evaluated and rated using design principles is still limited. Further, the usability of exoskeletons when assembling, donning, doffing and disassembling them, tasks that can be considered pre and post use tasks are also critical to evaluate, especially from a device design standpoint. We conducted a heuristic evaluation of the usability of three popular exoskeletons, a back support device, a shoulder support device, and a sit stand exoskeleton when assembling, donning, doffing and disassembling them. Seven evaluators used Nielsen and Shneiderman usability heuristics to evaluate the devices. Results indicate that none of the three exoskeletons had any catastrophic usability problems, but all three had major usability problems including accommodating diverse users, the assembly, donning and doffing being a two person operation, poor documentation, a lack of sequence indicators during assembly of the devices, presence of safety hazards while donning and doffing the devices, and manual strength requirements. Further, the assembly task is the most difficult task resulting in the most violations of usability heuristics. The exoskeleton human factors research community should include diverse users in their evaluations and conduct usability, accessibility, and safety evaluations of these devices to provide design feedback to device designers.
Community Contributions
Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!
π Similar Papers
In the same crypt β Human-Computer Interaction
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Improving fairness in machine learning systems: What do industry practitioners need?
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Identifying Stable Patterns over Time for Emotion Recognition from EEG
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Questioning the AI: Informing Design Practices for Explainable AI User Experiences
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Deep Learning for Sensor-based Human Activity Recognition: Overview, Challenges and Opportunities
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Educational data mining and learning analytics: An updated survey
Died the same way β π» Ghosted
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Federated Learning: Strategies for Improving Communication Efficiency
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
In-Datacenter Performance Analysis of a Tensor Processing Unit
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Deep Convolutional Neural Networks for Computer-Aided Detection: CNN Architectures, Dataset Characteristics and Transfer Learning
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted