Measuring mental workload in assistive wearable devices: a review.
Charlotte Marchand, Jozina B De Graaf, Nathanaël Jarrassé
PMID 34743700WHAT IT FOUND
No single method reliably measures the mental workload of using assistive devices like prosthetics or exoskeletons.
Subjective ratings and dual-task tests are common but imprecise, while physiological measures are often confounded by physical effort. Clinicians cannot currently quantify this burden accurately.
Key findings
01Subjective questionnaires and dual-task procedures are the most widely used methods, accounting for 45% and 40% of studies respectively, but they suffer from imprecision.
02Physiological measures like heart rate and skin response are often unsuitable because they are highly sensitive to physical load, which can mask or mimic mental workload.
03There is no consensus on the most suitable method for measuring mental workload in wearable assistive devices, and brain activity measures remain complex and expensive.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they found
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
This is a narrative review of measurement methods, not a clinical trial, so it does not provide evidence on patient outcomes or treatment efficacy. The review notes that most studies rely on laboratory settings, meaning the findings may not apply to real-world ecological use of devices. There is no unified definition of mental workload across the included studies, making comparisons between methods difficult. The search may have missed studies using customized questionnaires that were not indexed in major databases.
Declared interests
The work was funded by the Agence Nationale de la Recherche (French National Research Agency).
The easy way to misread this
Do not assume that physiological signs like increased heart rate or sweating during device use indicate high mental workload. These measures are heavily influenced by the physical effort of walking or moving, and the review found they are often not suitable for distinguishing mental strain from physical strain in assistive device users.