Effects of target location, stature and hand grip type on in-vehicle reach discomfort

Abstract

In order to improve car interior design, data of perceived discomfort and reach posture were collected for 75 different target locations. Altogether, 24 males and females of different statures participated in the experiment. In addition to three-finger grip, index fingertip reach and five finger grip were also compared. The effects of target location, stature and hand grip on reach discomfort were analysed. Predictive regression equations were provided. In addition to the confirmation of target location effects, the results showed that seat back and steering wheel affected discomfort. Their effects differed according to the subject's anthropometry. A detailed analysis of possible interference between the car interior and reach movement showed that short females were more likely impeded by the seat back when a target was close to the body. A significant difference between three hand grip types could be explained by the change of hand reach distance when changing hand grip type. STATEMENT OF RELEVANCE: The present study analysed the effects of target location, stature and hand grip type on reach discomfort, based on the statistical analysis of subjective ratings when reaching a target in a vehicle. The results would help to optimise the location of automotive controls for improving car interior design.

To twist, roll, stroke or poke? A study of input devices for menu navigation in the cockpit

“…The rotary controller and trackball provide some level of support for the hand to rest during the interaction and are consequently more comfortable; however, the touch screen also relies on finger inputs so the low discomfort rating for this device was slightly surprising. Ratings for whole body discomfort were highest for the touch screen: this reflects the problems caused by locating this device at a distance away from the user (Dul and Weerdmeester 2001;Shin and Zhu 2011;Wang and Trasbot 2011). The trackball produced the lowest levels of body discomfort, although there was little difference in the ratings for all three indirect input devices.…”

“…Unlike indirect devices, which do not need to be positioned in close proximity to the associated display screen, the touch screen requires direct inputs onto the screen. For this reason, touch screens can cause increased levels of discomfort as the user's arm needs to remain outstretched to interact with a vertically positioned display (Shin and Zhu 2011;Wang and Trasbot 2011). This could increase the levels of discomfort experienced with this input device (Dul and Weerdmeester 2001).…”

“…In practical terms, direct devices offer a space-efficient interface solution as there is no associated remote controller (Taveira and Choi 2009); however, this also means that the screen has to be located within reach of the operator (Dul and Weerdmeester 2001), which may be significantly lower than the operator's eye line. The position of the touch screen may also result in a higher level of muscle fatigue for the operator, compared to indirect devices, as the arm must be held outstretched during interactions with the interface (Wang and Trasbot 2011). The direct contact between the operator's fingers and the display screen may also result in part of the touch screen being obscured during use (Taveira and Choi 2009).…”

The manipulability: a new index for quantifying movement capacities of upper extremity

“…So, it would be interesting to study more specific movements involving an operator, e.g., manipulate a joystick (Oliver et al 2007), perform telecommunication call (Lin et al 2009), use new technologies such as touchscreen (Shin and Zhu 2011), or the impact that could have different settings of an office chair on the movements (Groenesteijn et al 2009). Together with other measures, it may help to optimise the organisation of the workspace (Wang and Trasbot 2011) or the use of technical assistance such as wheelchairs (Gorce and Louis in press).…”

Ergonomic Testing for the Design of an Innovative Mail Delivery Vehicle: A Physical Mock-up Case Study

“…Although the psychophysical approach would have been suitable to the aim of this study (e.g. [40]), the MobyPost project requirements imposed to identify one dimension for each parameter. Thus a universal approach was adopted in the current study [41].…”