User discomfort, work posture and muscle activity while using a touchscreen in a desktop PC setting

Ergonomics

Volumn 54, Issue 8, 2011, Pages 733-744

  Shin, Gwanseob ^a   Zhu, Xinhui ^a  

^a State University of New York   (United States)

Author keywords

Armrest; Computer display; Computer workstation; EMG; Tabletop PC; Touchscreen; VDT

Indexed keywords

ARMREST; COMPUTER DISPLAY; EMG; TABLETOP PC; TOUCH SCREEN;

MAMMALS; MUSCLE; PERSONAL COMPUTERS; RATING;

COMPUTER WORKSTATIONS;

ADULT; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ARTICLE; BODY POSTURE; COMPUTER INTERFACE; ELECTROMYOGRAPHY; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; FEMALE; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; MALE; METHODOLOGY; MICROCOMPUTER; MUSCULOSKELETAL PAIN; PHYSIOLOGY;

ADULT; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; DATA DISPLAY; ELECTROMYOGRAPHY; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MICROCOMPUTERS; MUSCULOSKELETAL PAIN; POSTURE; USER-COMPUTER INTERFACE; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 80051758428     PISSN: 00140139     EISSN: 13665847     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00140139.2011.592604     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Aaras, A., et al., 1997. Postural load during VDU work: a comparison between various work postures. Ergonomics, 40 (11), 1255-1268.
2. ANSI/HFES, 2007. Human factors engineering of computer workstations (ANSI/HFES 100-2007). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
3. Beck, A.R., et al., 2010. The development and utilization of a scale to measure adolescents' attitudes toward peers who use augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) devices. Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research, 53 (3), 572-587.
4. Bergqvist, U., et al., 1995. Musculoskeletal disorders among visual display terminal workers: individual, ergonomic, and work organizational factors. Ergonomics, 38 (4), 763-776.
5. Burgess-Limerick, R., Plooy, A., and Ankrum, D.R., 1998. The effect of imposed and self-selected computer monitor height on posture and gaze angle. Clinical Biomechanics, 13 (8), 584-592.
6. Buxton, W., Hill, R., and Rowley, P., 1985. Issues and techniques in touch-sensitive tablet input. In: Proceedings of the 12th annual conference on computer graphics and interactive techniques. New York: ACM, 215-224.
7. Colle, H. and Hiszem, K., 2004. Standing at a kiosk: effects of key size and spacing on touch screen numeric keypad performance and user preference. Ergonomics, 47 (13), 1406-1423.
8. Cook, C., Burgess-Limerick, R., and Papalia, S., 2004. The effect of upper extremity support on upper extremity posture and muscle activity during keyboard use. Applied Ergonomics, 35 (3), 285-292.
9. Delisle, A., et al., 2006. Comparison of three computer office workstations offering forearm support: impact on upper limb posture and muscle activation. Ergonomics, 49 (2), 139-160.
10. Dennerlein, J.T. and Johnson, P.W., 2006a. Changes in upper extremity biomechanics across different mouse positions in a computer workstation. Ergonomics, 49 (14), 1456-1469.
11. Dennerlein, J.T. and Johnson, P.W., 2006b. Different computer tasks affect the exposure of the upper extremity to biomechanical risk factors. Ergonomics, 49 (1), 45-61.
12. Forlines, C., et al., 2007. Direct-touch vs. mouse input for tabletop displays. New York: Assoc Computing Machinery.
13. Gerr, F., Marcus, M., and Monteilh, C., 2004. Epidemiology of musculoskeletal disorders among computer users: lesson learned from the role of posture and keyboard use. Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology, 14 (1), 25-31.
14. Gerr, F., Monteilh, C.P., and Marcus, M., 2006. Keyboard use and musculoskeletal outcomes among computer users. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 16 (3), 265-277.
15. Grandjean, E., Hunting, W., and Nishiyama, K., 1984. Preferred VDT workstation settings, body posture and physical impairments. Applied Ergonomics, 15 (2), 99-104.
16. Harvey, R. and Peper, E., 1997. Surface electromyography and mouse use position. Ergonomics, 40 (8), 781-789.
17. Hoggan, E., et al., 2008. Investigating the effectiveness of tactile feedback for mobile touchscreens. New York: Assoc Computing Machinery.
18. Holzinger, A., 2003. Finger instead of mouse: touch screens as a means of enhancing universal access. In: N. Carbonell and C. Stephanidis, eds. Universal access: Theoretical perspectives, practice, and experience. Berlin: Springer-Verlag Berlin, 387-397.
19. Jaschinski, W., 2002. The proximity-fixation-disparity curve and the preferred viewing distance at a visual display as an indicator of near vision fatigue. Optometry and Vision Science, 79 (3), 158-169.
20. Jaschinski, W., Heuer, H., and Kylian, H., 1998. Preferred position of visual displays relative to the eyes: a field study of visual strain and individual differences. Ergonomics, 41 (7), 1034-1049.
21. Jonsson, B., 1988. The static load component in muscle work. European Journal of Applied Physiology and Occupational Physiology, 57 (3), 305-310.
22. Juul-Kristensen, B. and Jensen, C., 2005. Self-reported workplace related ergonomic conditions as prognostic factors for musculoskeletal symptoms: the 'bit' follow up study on office workers. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 62 (3), 188-194.
23. Kotani, K., et al., 2007. Effect of horizontal position of the computer keyboard on upper extremity posture and muscular load during computer work. Ergonomics, 50 (9), 1419-1432.
24. Kothiyal, K. and Bjornerem, A.M., 2009. Effects of computer monitor setting on muscular activity, user comfort and acceptability in office work. Work - a Journal of Prevention Assessment & Rehabilitation, 32 (2), 155-163.
25. Mcloone, H.E., et al., 2009. Design and evaluation of a curved computer keyboard. Ergonomics, 52 (12), 1529-1539.
26. Mathiassen, S.E. and Winkel, J., 1990. Electromyographic activity in the shoulder-neck region according to arm position and glenohumeral torque. European Journal of Applied Physiology and Occupational Physiology, 61 (5-6), 370-379.
27. Odell, D., et al., 2007. Evaluation of a dynamic arm support for seated and standing tasks: a laboratory study of electromyography and subjective feedback. Ergonomics, 50 (4), 520-535.
28. Peters, M. and Ivanoff, J., 1999. Performance asymmetries in computer mouse control of right-handers, and lefthanders with left- and right-handed mouse experience. Journal of Motor Behaviour, 31 (1), 86-94.
29. Rempel, D., et al., 2007. The effects of visual display distance on eye accommodation, head posture, and vision and neck symptoms. Human Factors, 49 (5), 830-838.
30. Rempel, D., et al., 2009. The effects of split keyboard geometry on upper body postures. Ergonomics, 52 (1), 104-111.
31. Seghers, J., Jochem, A., and Spaepen, A., 2003. Posture, muscle activity and muscle fatigue in prolonged vdt work at different screen height settings. Ergonomics, 46 (7), 714-730.
32. Shin, G. and Hegde, S., 2010. User-preferred position of computer displays: effects of display size. Human Factors, 52 (5), 574-585.
33. Sommerich, C.M., Joines, S.M.B., and Psihogios, J.P., 2001. Effects of computer monitor viewing angle and related factors on strain, performance, and preference outcomes. Human Factors, 43 (1), 39-55.
34. Taptagaporn, S. and Saito, S., 1993. Visual comfort in VDT operation - physiological resting states of the eye. Industrial Health, 31 (1), 13-28.
35. Turville, K.L., et al., 1998. The effects of video display terminal height on the operator: A comparison of the 15 degree and 40 degree recommendations. Applied Ergonomics, 29 (4), 239-246.
36. Villanueva, M.B., et al., 1997. Sitting posture and neck and shoulder muscle activities at different screen height settings of the visual display terminal. Industrial Health, 35 (3), 330-336.
37. Winter, D.A. and Scott, S.H., 1991. Technique for interpretation of electromyography for concentric and eccentric contractions in gait. Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology, 1 (4), 263-269.
38. Wobbrock, J.O., Myers, B.A., and Aung, H.H., 2008. The performance of hand postures in front- and back-ofdevice interaction for mobile computing. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 66 (12), 857-875.
39. Zecevic, A., Miller, D.I., and Harburn, K., 2000. An evaluation of the ergonomics of three computer keyboards. Ergonomics, 43 (1), 55-72.