130 likes | 216 Views
The Ergonomic Implications of Gesturing. Examining Single and Mixed Use with Appropriate Placement Lindsey Muse B.A., S. Camille Peres Ph.D., Adrian Garcia University of Houston-Clear Lake. The Problem: Research not keeping up with Technology.
E N D
The Ergonomic Implications of Gesturing Examining Single and Mixed Use with Appropriate Placement Lindsey Muse B.A., S. Camille Peres Ph.D., Adrian GarciaUniversity of Houston-Clear Lake
The Problem: Research not keeping up with Technology • Number of products with touch screen capabilities is increasing • Limited research available concerning the ergonomic impacts of gesturing • Existing research is almost completely based on subjective measurements • Designers and developers need objective measures accompanied with subjective measures to understand the impact of gesturing on the body to help avoid injury
Areas of Interest for Ergonomics (Independent Variables) • Types of touch screen devices • Handheld • Pad • Laptop • Desktop • Input Styles: • Single Use: Touch only • Mixed Use: Touch and keyboard or mouse where it applies • Possible placement for each product • Desk, Lap, Hand while sitting, Hand while standing
Participants • 100 participants from within and outside of the University of Houston-Clear Lake • Outside the university • $1oo each for participation • Within the university • One hour of participation credit for every hour in the study • Participants will be selected so they have some experience with at least one of the gesture input devices
Objective Measures • Surface EMG (SEMG) • 12 electrodes placed on the upper body to measure muscle activity during testing • Bilateral - flexor, extensor, trapezius, deltoid, thenar and hypothenar • Mean and Standard deviation of RMS of SEMG
Subjective Measures • Modified Body Discomfort Diagram • 17 body parts and muscle groups for participants to rate (primarily looking at the upper body) • Open-ended questions • Participants’ computer usage • Their comfort or discomfort after each session
Goals • Obtain objective and subjective ratings from participants for the 4 touch screen devices • Gather data with different input styles (single and mixed use) where applicable • Gather data in the different postures that apply to each device • Better understand the risks involved for these 4 products • Provide valuable information to minimize risks in current and future technologies
Appendix:Data Analysis • Primarily exploratory and descriptive analyses: • ANOVA’s calculated for each dependent measure on each device (and by environment where appropriate) • subjective: BDD • objective: S-EMG • Summary of comments on open ended questions
Analyses-Subjective • BDD: difference in ratings by • device, posture, muscle, session • free choice • input device, posture • free response • most uncomfortable task, how uncomfortable were they with the posture • did counterbalance seem to matter with any of these?
Analyses-Objective • SEMG: • Mean EMG: by device, task, muscle, posture • SD EMG: by device, task, muscle, posture • Motion Capture • 3 angles: shoulder abduction (?), elbow extension, torso lean (?) • per device and posture (two prescribed postures): • Typical worst posture • how long until participants assume that posture • how long they maintain the posture • per device - free choice: • Typical worst posture • how long until participants assume that posture • how long they maintain the posture