Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Table 1.

Key elements of the four exoskeletons tested in this study, including potential limiting factors for setup and takedown tasks.

More »

Table 1 Expand

Fig 1.

Parts and components of the Ironhand exoskeleton.

More »

Fig 1 Expand

Fig 2.

Parts and components of the Chairless Chair exoskeleton.

More »

Fig 2 Expand

Fig 3.

Parts and components of the Skelex exoskeleton.

More »

Fig 3 Expand

Fig 4.

Parts and components of the Laevo exoskeleton.

More »

Fig 4 Expand

Table 2.

Task performance measures and design characteristics of exoskeletons.

More »

Table 2 Expand

Fig 5.

Mean task completion times for each task and exoskeleton type..

More »

Fig 5 Expand

Fig 6.

Interaction effect between task and exoskeleton type as predictors of task completion time.

More »

Fig 6 Expand

Fig 7.

Effect sizes for pairwise comparisons between exoskeletons; only statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) shown.

Large effects (green bars) for assembly tasks dominate the comparisons..

More »

Fig 7 Expand

Table 3.

Pooled Regression Analysis: Task Completion Time (N = 16).

More »

Table 3 Expand

Fig 8.

Task completion times as a function of number of HTA steps for the 16 task-exoskeleton combinations tested here (four tasks, four devices).

More »

Fig 8 Expand

Fig 9.

Task completion times as a function of the number of usability problems for the 16 task-exoskeleton combinations tested here (four tasks, four devices).

More »

Fig 9 Expand

Table 4.

Task-specific regression analyses: task completion time.

More »

Table 4 Expand

Fig 10.

Proportion of variance in task completion times (R2) explained by number of HTA steps (procedural complexity) and number of usability problems across setup and takedown tasks.

More »

Fig 10 Expand

Fig 11.

Weak correlations between part count and each of completion time and failure rate for the different setup and takedown tasks.

More »

Fig 11 Expand

Fig 12.

Task failure rates for different exoskeletons.

More »

Fig 12 Expand

Fig 13.

Task failure rates as a function of the number of HTA steps for the assembly task.

More »

Fig 13 Expand

Table 5.

Regression analysis: task failure rates.

More »

Table 5 Expand

Table 6.

Summary of fitted design-level regression models.

More »

Table 6 Expand

Table 7.

Participant-level regression results: Predictors of task completion time (N = 397 observations).

More »

Table 7 Expand

Table 8.

Key findings summary with statistical evidence.

More »

Table 8 Expand

Table 9.

Design complexity comparison across exoskeletons.

More »

Table 9 Expand