Muscular load and performance compared between a pen and a computer mouse as input devices

International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics

Volumn 40, Issue 6, 2010, Pages 607-617

  Müller, Christian ^a,b   Tomatis, Laura ^a   Läubli, Thomas ^a  

^a ETH Zurich   (Switzerland)

^b ETH ZURICH   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

EMG; Mouse; Musculoskeletal disorders; Pen

Indexed keywords

ALTERNATIVE INPUT DEVICES; COMPUTER MOUSE; DRAG AND DROP; EMG; EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES; INPUT DEVICES; LEARNING EFFECTS; LOGARITHMIC MODELS; MOUSE; MUSCULOSKELETAL DISORDERS; PEN; PERFORMANCE MEASURE; RISK FACTORS; SICK LEAVE; TEST PROGRAM; TRAPEZIUS MUSCLE; WORK-RELATED MUSCULOSKELETAL DISORDERS;

ERGONOMICS; INDUSTRY; MUSCLE;

KNOBS;

ADULT; ARTICLE; COMPUTER INPUT DEVICE; COMPUTER MOUSE; COMPUTER PEN; ELECTROMYOGRAPHY; EMPLOYEE; EXPERIMENTAL STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; LEARNING; MALE; MEDICAL LEAVE; MUSCLE CONTRACTION; MUSCLE FUNCTION; MUSCULOSKELETAL DISEASE; PREVALENCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RISK FACTOR; RISK REDUCTION; STATISTICAL MODEL; TASK PERFORMANCE; TRAPEZIUS MUSCLE;

EID: 77957750898     PISSN: 01698141     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ergon.2010.08.004     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Aarås A., Dainoff M., et al. Can a more neutral position of the forearm when operation a computer mouse reduce the pain level for VDU operators?. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 2002, 30:307-324.
2. Aarås A., Ro O. Work load when using a mouse as an input device. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction 1997, 9(2):105-118.
3. Atkinson S., Woods V., et al. Using non-keyboard input devices: interviews with users in the workplace. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 2004, 33:571-579.
4. Baker N.A., Jacobs K., et al. The effect of video display terminal (VDT) mouse use on muscle contractions in the neck and forearm. Work 1999, 12:109-116.
5. Ball N., Scurr J. An assessment of the reliability and standardisation of tests used to elicit reference muscular actions for electromyographical normalisation. Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology 2010, 20(1):81-88.
6. Birch L. Muscle Activity in the Upper Extremities during Computer Work-Effects of Work Exposures and Experimental Muscle Pain 2000, Laboratory of Experimental Pain Research, Center for Sensory-Motor Interaction, Aalborg Universitiy, Dänemark.
7. Blatter B.M., Bongers P.M. Duration of computer use and mouse use in relation to musculoskeletal disorders of neck or upper limb. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 2002, 30:295-306.
8. Borg E., Kaijser L. A comparison between three rating scales for perceived exertion and two different work tests. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports 2006, 16:57-69.
9. Brown J.N.A., Albert W.J., et al. A new input device: comparison to three commercially available mouses. Ergonomics 2007, 50(2):208-277.
10. Burnett A., Green J., et al. Examination of EMG normalisation methods for the study of the posterior and posterolateral neck muscles in healthy controls. Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology 2007, 17(5):635-641.
11. Card S.K., English W.K., et al. Evaluation of mouse, rate-controlled isometric joystick, step key, and text keys for text selection on a CRT. Ergonomics 1978, 21(8):601-613.
12. Chang C.H., Amick B.C., et al. Daily computer usage correlated with undergraduate students' musculoskeletal symptoms. American Journal of Industrial Medicine 2007, 50(6):481-488.
13. Dang N.T., Tavanti M., et al. A comparison of different input devices for a 3D environment. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 2009, 39(3):554-563.
14. Delisle A., Lariviere C., et al. Comparison of three computer office workstations offering forearm support: impact on upper limb posture and muscle activation. Ergonomics 2009, 49(2):139-160.
15. El Ahrache K., Imbeau D., et al. Percentile values for determining maximum endurance times for static muscular work. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 2005, 36(2):99-108.
16. Forsman M., Thorn S. Mechanisms for Work Related Disorders Among Computer Workers 2007, Ergonomics and Health Aspects of Work with Computers, Proceedings 4566: 57-64.
17. Gerard M.J., Jones S.K., et al. An ergonomic evaluation of the kinesis ergonomic computer keyboard. Ergonomics 1994, 37(10):1661-1668.
18. Hägg G.M. Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology. Static workload and occupational myalgia-a new explanation model 1991, 141-144.
19. Harvey R., Peper E. Surface electromyography and mouse use position. Ergonomics 1997, 40(8):781-789.
20. Haynes S. Effects of positioning optimization in an alternative computer workstation for people with and without low back pain. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 2009, 39(5):719-727.
21. Henneman E. The size-principle: a deterministic output emerges from a set of probabilistic connections. Journal of Experimental Biology 1985, 115:105-112.
22. Hummel A., Läubli T., et al. Relationship between perceived exertion and mean power frequency of the EMG signal from the upper trapezius muscle during isometric shoulder elevation. European Journal of Applied Physiology 2005, 95:321-326.
23. Hwang Y.H., Wang C.H., et al. Validation of a recording system for computer pointing device activity. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 2009, 39(5):681-688.
24. Ichikawa H., Homma M., et al. An experimental evaluation of input devices for pointing work. International Journal of Production Economics 1999, 60-61:235-240.
25. Jensen C., Borg V., et al. Job demands, muscle activity and musculoskeletal symptoms in relation to work with the computer mouse. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health 1998, 24(5):418-424.
26. Jensen C., Finsen L., et al. Musculoskeletal symptoms and duration of computer and mouse use. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 2002, 30(4-5):265-275.
27. Kankaanpää M., Taimela S., et al. Lumbar paraspinal muscle fatigability in repetitive isoinertial loading: EMG spectral indices, Borg scale and endurance time. European Journal of Applied Physiology 1997, 76:236-242.
28. Kotani K., Horii K. An analysis of muscular load and performance in using a pen-tablet system. Journal of Physiological Anthropology and Applied Human Science 2003, 22(2):89-95.
29. Künzi L., Tomatis L., et al. Comparison of mouse and pen as input device for computer work. Applied Ergonomics 2007, (Revision pending).
30. MacKenzie I.S. Fitts' law as a research and design tool in human-computer interaction. Human-Computer Interaction 1992, 7:91-139.
31. Mathiassen S.E., Winkel J., et al. Normalization of surface EMG amplitude from the upper trapezius muscle in ergonomic studies-a review. Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology 1995, 5(4):197-226.
32. Nieminen H. Methods for the Analysis of Surface EMG in Ergonomic Evaluations 1989, Research Reports, Espoo, Finnland, Technical Research Center of Finland, Medical Engineering Laboratory.
33. Park J., Han S.H., et al. Evaluation of cursor capturing functions in a target positioning task. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 2006, 36(8):721-730.
34. Schnoz M. On the Role of Trapezius Co-Activity and Unfavourable Motor Unit Patterns in the Development of Muscle Disorders in Human-Computer Interaction Zürich, Schweiz 2006, Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule ETH Zürich, Dr. sc. ETH Zürich.
35. SENIAM Surface ElectroMyoGraphy for the Non-Invasive Assessment of Muscles 2006.
36. Simonson E., Weiser P. Psychological Aspects and Physiological Correlates of Work and Fatigue 1976, Thomas, Springfield, Illinois.
37. Visser B., De Looze M.P., et al. Effects of precision demands and mental pressure on muscle activation and hand forces in computer mouse tasks. Ergonomics 2004, 47(2):202-217.
38. Wobbrock J.O., Cutrell E., et al. An Error Model for Pointing Based on Fitts' Law 2008, Proceeding of the twenty-sixth annual SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, ACM, Florence, Italy.
39. Zipp P., Haider E., et al. Keyboard design through physiological strain measurements. Applied Ergonomics 1983, 14(2):117-122.