A Comparison of Muscular Activity Involved in the Use of Two Different Types of Computer Mouse

• Autorzy: Kumar R. , Kumar S.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Two types of computer input devices, a conventional mouse and a roller bar one, were studied in terms of muscular activitiy in m. trapezius dexter, m. deltoideus anterior dexter and m. extensor digitorum dexter, and comfort rating. Fifteen university students and employees participated in this study. The order of the devices was random. While a task was performed, electromyography (EMG) data were recorded for each test. Muscular activity was found to be significantly lower for the roller bar mouse than for the conventional one. Comfort rating indicated there was a significant difference in moving a cursor with the conventional mouse compared to the roller bar one. It is concluded that a roller bar mouse allowed the subjects to work closer to the body compared to the conventional one, thus the former can be recommended as a general means of reducing upper extremity musculoskeletal disorders.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

muscular activity; EMG; computer mouse

• Wydawca: Taylor & Francis
• Czasopismo: International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics
• Rocznik: 2008
• Tom: Vol. 14, No. 3
• Strony: 305--311
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 25 poz., rys., tab., wykr.

Twórcy

autor

Kumar R.

• Department of Human Work Sciences, Lulea University of Technology, Lulea, Sweden

autor

Kumar S.

• Health Science Center, University of North Texas, Fort Worth, USA

Bibliografia

• 1.Hjelm E, Karlqvist L, Hagberg M, Risberg E, Isaksson A, Toomingas A. Working conditions and musculoskeletal disorders among male and female computer operators. In: Proceedings of the IEA 2000/HFES 2000 Congress, San Diego, California, USA. Santa Monica, CA, USA: Human Factors and Ergonomic Society; 2000. vol. 1, p. 675–7.
• 2.Cook C, Burgess-Limerick R, Papalia S. The effect of wrist rests and forearm support during keyboard and mouse use. Int J Ind Ergon 2004;33:463–72.
• 3.Karlqvist L, Hagberg M, Selin K. Variation in upper limb posture and movement during word processing with and without mouse use. Ergonomics. 1994;37,1261–67.
• 4.Fogleman M, Brogmus G. Computer mouse use and cumulative trauma disorders of the upper extremities. Ergonomics. 1995;38: 2465–75.
• 5.Kryger AI, Andersen JH, Lassen CF, Brandt LP, Vilstrup I, Overgaard E, et al. Does computer use pose an occupational hazard for forearm pain; from the NUDATA study. Occup Environ Med. 2003;60:e14.
• 6.Lassen CF, Mikkelsen S, Kryger AI, Brandt LP, Overgaard E, Thomsen JF, et al. Elbow and wrist/hand symptoms among 6,943 computer operators: a 1-year follow-up study (NUDATA study). Am J Ind Med. 2004;46:521–33.
• 7.Karlqvist L, Hagberg M, Köster M, Wenemark M, Ånell R. Musculoskeletal symptoms among computer-assisted design (CAD) operators and evaluation of a self assessment questionnaire. Int J Ocup Environ Health. 1996;2:185–94.
• 8.Cook C, Kothiyal K. Influence of mouse position on muscular activity in the neck, shoulder and arm in computer users. Appl Ergon. 1998;29(6):439–43.
• 9.Cook C, Burgess-Limerick R, Chang S. The prevalence of neck and upper extremity musculoskeletal symptoms in computer mouse users. Int J Ind Ergon. 2000;26(3):347–56.
• 10.Burgess-Limerick R, Shemmell J, Scadden R, Plooy A. Wrist posture during computer pointing device use. Clin Biomech. 1999; 14:280–6.
• 11.Johnson PW, Hewes J, Dropkin J, Rempel DM. Office ergonomics: motion analysis of computer mouse usage. In: Proceedings of the American Industrial Hygiene Conference & Exposition. Fairfax, VA, USA: AIHA; 1993. p. 12–13.
• 12.Rempel D. Musculoskeletal loading and carpal tunnel pressure. In: Gordon SL, Blair SJ, Fine, LJ, editors. Repetitive motion disorders of the upper extremity. Rosemont, IL, USA: American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons; 1995. p. 123–32.
• 13.Werner R, Armstrong TJ, Bir C, Aylard MK. Intracarpal canal pressures: the role of finger, hand, wrist and forearm position, Clin Biomech. 1997;12:44–51.
• 14.Chaparro A, Bohan M, Fernandez J, Choi DS, Kattel B. The Impact of age on computer input device use: psychophysical and physiological measures. Int J Ind Ergon. 1999;24:503–13.
• 15.Keir PJ, Bach JM, Rempel D. Effects of computer mouse design and task on carpal tunnel pressure. Ergonomics. 1999; 42:1350–60.
• 16.Harvey R, Peper E. Surface electromyography and mouse use position. Ergonomics. 1997;40:781–9.
• 17.Cram JR, Kasman GS, Holtz J. Introduction to surface electromyography. Gaithersburg, MD, USA: Aspen; 1998.
• 18.McCully SP, David NS, Kosek P, Karduna AR. Surprascapular nerve block results in compensatory increase in deltoid muscle activity. J Biomech. 2007;40(8): 1839–46.
• 19.Delagi EF, Perotti A, Ianzzetti J, Morrison D. In: Anatomic guide for the electromyographer—the limbs. Springfield, IL, USA: Thomas; 1981.
• 20.Karlqvist L, Bernmark E, Ekenvall E, Hagberg M, Isaksson A, Rosto T. Computer mouse and track-ball operation: similarities and differences in posture, muscular load and perceived exertion. Int J Ind Ergon. 1999;23:157–69.
• 21.Alpert SW, Pink MM, Jobe FW, McMahon PJ, Mathiyakom W. Electromyographic analysis of deltoid and rotator cuff function under varying loads and speed. J Should Elb Surg. 2000;9:47–58.
• 22.Albin T. Effect of wrist rest use and keyboard tilt on wrist angle while keying. In: Seppala P, Luopajarvi T, Nygard CH, Mattila M, editors. Proceedings of the 13th Triennial Congress of the International Ergonomics Association, Tampere, Finland, 1997. Helsinki, Finland: Finnish Institute of Occupational Health; 1997. vol. 4, p. 16–8.
• 23.Hedge A, Shaw G. Effect of mouse position on shoulder muscle activity. Ithaca, NY, USA: Department of Design and Environmental Analysis, Cornell University; 1996. Retrieved June 10, 2007, from: http://ergo.human.cornell.edu/AHProjects/EMGPaper1.pdf.
• 24.Bernard P. Musculoskeletal disorders and workplace factors. A critical review of epidemiologic evidence for work-related musculoskeletal disorders of the neck, upper extremity and low back (NIOSH Publication No. 97-141). Cincinatti, OH, USA: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH); 1997.
• 25.Golden J, Vanderhoff J. A controlled study of responses to a centrally controlled bar mouse compared to a standard ambidextrous 2 button mouse. Newark, NJ, USA: Rutgers University; 2002.