Denis A Coelho1, Miguel L Lourenço2,3. 1. Department of Supply Chain and Operations Management, School of Engineering, Jönköping University, Jönköping, Sweden. 2. C-MAST: Centre for Mechanical and Aerospace Science and Technologies, Universidade da Beira Interior, Covilhã, Portugal. 3. Engineering and Technology Technical Scientific Unit & Research Unit for Inland Development, Technology and Management School, Guarda Polytechnic Institute, Guarda, Portugal.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Static muscular activity of muscles activated in the use of the conventional PC mouse is believed to represent a higher risk for the musculoskeletal health of the user than dynamic muscular activity. OBJECTIVE: This paper presents a compounded muscular activity dynamics indicator (akin to percent relative range), enabling comparison between computer handheld pointing devices. METHODS: This muscular dynamism approach considers baseline muscular activity (APL, ECR, ECU and ED) relative to the Maximum Voluntary Contraction as well as the dynamics of muscular activation. The latter is computed as the ratio of the difference between APDF90 and APDF10 divided by APDF50 (APDF-Amplitude Probability Distribution Function for the 90th, 50th and 10th percentiles). The paper demonstrates the approach with results of comparative evaluation of a horizontal, a slanted and a vertical PC mouse, through surface EMG monitoring of 20 participants performing standardized graphical task with the devices. RESULTS: Hand size impacts muscular activity dynamics in these four muscles, which supersedes differences in device geometry, across the range of devices tested. CONCLUSION: Smaller devices relative to hand size foster more dynamic muscular activity.
BACKGROUND: Static muscular activity of muscles activated in the use of the conventional PC mouse is believed to represent a higher risk for the musculoskeletal health of the user than dynamic muscular activity. OBJECTIVE: This paper presents a compounded muscular activity dynamics indicator (akin to percent relative range), enabling comparison between computer handheld pointing devices. METHODS: This muscular dynamism approach considers baseline muscular activity (APL, ECR, ECU and ED) relative to the Maximum Voluntary Contraction as well as the dynamics of muscular activation. The latter is computed as the ratio of the difference between APDF90 and APDF10 divided by APDF50 (APDF-Amplitude Probability Distribution Function for the 90th, 50th and 10th percentiles). The paper demonstrates the approach with results of comparative evaluation of a horizontal, a slanted and a vertical PC mouse, through surface EMG monitoring of 20 participants performing standardized graphical task with the devices. RESULTS: Hand size impacts muscular activity dynamics in these four muscles, which supersedes differences in device geometry, across the range of devices tested. CONCLUSION: Smaller devices relative to hand size foster more dynamic muscular activity.