Extended use of conventional computer input devices is associated with negative musculoskeletal outcomes. While many alternative designs have been proposed, it is unclear whether these devices reduce biomechanical loading and musculoskeletal outcomes.
OBJECTIVE:
To review studies describing and evaluating the biomechanical loading and musculoskeletal outcomes associated with conventional and alternative input devices.
METHODS:
Included studies evaluated biomechanical loading and/or musculoskeletal outcomes of users’ distal or proximal upper extremity regions associated with the operation of alternative input devices (pointing devices, mice, other devices) that could be used in a desktop personal computing environment during typical office work.
RESULTS:
Some alternative pointing device designs (e.g. rollerbar) were consistently associated with decreased biomechanical loading while other designs had inconsistent results across studies. Most alternative keyboards evaluated in the literature reduce biomechanical loading and musculoskeletal outcomes. Studies of other input devices (e.g. touchscreen and gestural controls) were rare, however, those reported to date indicate that these devices are currently unsuitable as replacements for traditional devices.
CONCLUSIONS:
Alternative input devices that reduce biomechanical loading may make better choices for preventing or alleviating musculoskeletal outcomes during computer use, however, it is unclear whether many existing designs are effective.
BreshahanTBrynjolfssonEHittL2002Information Technology, Work Organization, and the demand for skill labor: Firm-level evidenceQ J Econ1171339376
2.
van den HeuvelSGIjmkerSBlatterBMde KorteEM2007Loss of productivity due to neck/shoulder symptoms and hand/arm symptoms: Results from the PROMO-studyJ Occup Rehabil173370382
3.
EltayebSStaalJBKennesJLambertsPHde BieRA2007Prevalence of complaints of arm, neck and shoulder among computer office workers and psychometric evaluation of a risk factor questionnaireBMC Musculoskelet Disord14868
4.
GerrFMonteilhCPMarcusM2006Keyboard use and musculoskeletal outcomes among computer usersJ Occup Rehabil163265277
5.
van der IjmkerSHuysmansMABlatterBMvan der BeekAJvan MechelenWBongersPM2007Should office workers spend fewer hours at their computer? A systematic review of the literatureOccup Environ Med644211222
6.
SauterSLSwansonNG1996An ecological model of musculoskeletal disorders in office workBeyond Biomechanics: Psychosocial aspects of musculoskeletal disorders in office workMoonSDSauterSLTaylor and FrancisLondon
7.
WahlstromJ2005Ergonomics, musculoskeletal disorders and computer workOccup Med553168176
8.
National Research Council, Institute of Medicine. Panel on musculoskeletal disorders and the workplace commission on behavioral and social sciences and education. Musculoskeletal disorders and the workplace: Low back and upper extremities. Washington DC: National academy of sciences (US), 2001, pp. 492
9.
VisserBvan DieenJH2006Pathophysiology of upper extremity muscle disordersJ Electromyogr Kinesiol161116
10.
BarbeMFBarrAE2006Inflammation and the pathophysiology of work-related musculoskeletal disordersBrain Behav Immun205423429
11.
Klockenberg EA. Rationalisierung der Schreibmaschine undihrer Bedienung [Rationalization of the typewriter and its operation]. 1926; Berlin: Springer
12.
KarlqvistLHagbergMSelinK1994Variation in upper limb posture and movement during word processing with and without mouse useErgonomics37712611267
13.
KeirPJBachJMRempelD1999Effects of computer mouse design and task on carpal tunnel pressureErgonomics421013501360
14.
Oude HengelKMHouwinkAOdellDvan DieenJHDennerleinJT2008Smaller external notebook mice have different effects on posture and muscle activityClin Biomech236727734
15.
LeeDLFleisherJMcLooneHEKotaniKDennerleinJT2007Alternative computer mouse design and testing to reduce finger extensor muscle activity during mouse useHum Factors494573584
16.
ChenHMLeungCT2007The effect on forearm and shoulder muscle activity in using different slanted computer miceClin Biomech225518523
17.
WuFGLuoS2006Design and evaluation approach for increasing stability and performance of touch pens in screen handwriting tasksAppl Ergon373319327
18.
WoodsVHastingsSBucklePHaslamR2003Development of non-keyboard input device checklists through assessmentsAppl Ergon346511519
19.
AsundiKOdellD2011Effects of keyboard keyswitch design: A review of the current literatureWork392151159
20.
DennerleinJT2006The Computer Keyboard: System designs as interventionsOccupational Ergonomics Handbook2nd edMarrasWSKarwowskiWCRC PressBoca Raton
21.
RempelD2008The split keyboard: An ergonomics success storyHum Factors503385392
22.
HinckleyKPauschRGobleJCKassellNF1994A survey of design issues in spatial input. Paper presented at: ACM symposium on User interface software and technology, Marina del Rey, USA
23.
NielsenMStörringMMoeslundTBGranumE2005A procedure for developing intuitive and ergonomic gesture interfaces for man-machine interaction. Paper presented at: International Gesture Workshop, Berder, France
24.
Juul-KristensenBLaursenBPilegaardMJensenBR2004Physical workload during use of speech recognition and traditional computer input devicesErgonomics472119133
25.
de KorteEMvan LingenP2006The effect of speech recognition on working postures, productivity and the perception of user friendlinessAppl Ergon373341347
26.
TittiranondaPRempelDArmstrongTBurasteroS1999Effect of four computer keyboards in computer users with upper extremity musculoskeletal disordersAm J Ind Med356647661
27.
RempelDTittiranondaPBurasteroSHudesMSoY1999Effect of keyboard keyswitch design on hand painJ Occup Environ Med412111119
28.
AarasARoOThoresenM2001Can a more neutral position of the forearm when operating a computer mouse reduce the pain level for visual display operators? A prospective epidemiological intervention study. Part IIInt J Hum Comput Interact131340
29.
RempelDMKrauseNGoldbergRBennerDHudesMGoldnerGU2006A randomized controlled trial evaluating the effects of two workstation interventions on upper body pain and incident musculoskeletal disorders among computer operatorsOccup Environ Med635300306
30.
ConlonCFKrauseNRempelDM2009A randomized controlled trial evaluating an alternative mouse or forearm support on change in median and ulnar nerve motor latency at the wristAm J Ind Med524304310
31.
BrewerSvan EerdDAmickBCIrvinEDaumKMGerrFMooreJSCullenKRempelD2006Workplace interventions to prevent musculoskeletal and visual symptoms and disorders among computer users: A systematic reviewJ Occup Rehabil163325358
KennedyCAAmickBCDennerleinJTBrewerSCatliSWilliamsRSerraCGerrFIrvinEMahoodQFranzblauAvan EerdBEvanoffBRempelD2010Systematic review of the role of occupational health and safety interventions in the prevention of upper extremity musculoskeletal symptoms, signs, disorders, injuries, claims and lost timeJ Occup Rehabil202127162
34.
Burgess-LimerickRShemmellJScaddenRPlooyA1999Wrist posture during computer pointing device useClin Biomech144280286
35.
KarlqvistLBernmarkEEkenvallLHagbergMIsakssonARostoT1999Computer mouse and track-ball operation: Similarities and differences in posture, muscular load and perceived exertionInt J Ind Ergon233157169
36.
LinMYCYoungJGDennerleinJT2013Evaluating the effect of four different pointing device designs on upper extremity posture and muscle activity during mousing tasks. Paper presented at: Applied Ergonomics Conference, Dallas, USA
37.
HarveyR1PeperE1997Surface electromyography and mouse use positionErgonomics408781789
38.
HouwinkA1Oude HengelKMOdellDDennerleinJT2009Providing training enhances the biomechanical improvements of an alternative computer mouse designHum Factors5114655
39.
AarasARoO1997Workload when using a mouse as an input deviceInt J Hum Comput Interact92105118
40.
GustafssonEHagbergM2003Computer mouse use in two different hand positions: Exposure, comfort, exertion and productivityAppl Ergon342107113
41.
QuemeloPRVieiraER2013Biomechanics and performance when using a standard and a vertical computer mouseErgonomics10.1080/00140139.2013.805251
42.
AarasARoOThoresenM1999Can a more neutral position of the forearm when operating a computer mouse reduce the pain level for visual display operators? A prospective epidemiological intervention studyInt J Hum Comput Interact117994
43.
ConlonCFKrauseNRempelDM2008A randomized controlled trial evaluating an alternative mouse and forearm support on upper body discomfort and musculoskeletal disorders among engineersOccup Environ Med655311318
44.
KelaherDNayTLawrenceBLamarSSommerichCM2001An investigation of the effects of touchpad location within a notebook computerAppl Ergon321101110
45.
AkamatsuMMacKenzieIS2002Changes in applied force to a touchpad during pointing tasksInt J Ind Ergon29171182
46.
LeeYHSuMC2008Design and validation of a desk-free and posture-independent input deviceAppl Ergon393399406
47.
KotaniKHoriiK2003An analysis of muscular load and performance in using a pen-tablet systemJ Physiol Anthropol Appl Human Sci2228995
48.
MullerCTomatisLLaubliT2010Muscular load and performance compared between a pen and a computer mouse as input devicesInt J Ind Ergon40607617
49.
SommerichCMStarrHSmithCAShiversC2002Effects of notebook computer configuration and task on user biomechanics, productivity, and comfortInt J Hum Comput301731
50.
FernstromEEricsonMO1997Computer mouse or trackpoint— effects on muscular load and operator experienceAppl Ergon285-6347354
51.
WuCFLaiCCLiuYK2013Investigation of the performance of trackpoint and touchpads with varied right and left buttons function locationsAppl Ergon442312320
52.
GravinaNLindstrom-HazelDAustinJ2007The effects of workstation changes and behavioral interventions on safe typing postures in an officeWork293245253
53.
KumarRKumarS2008A comparison of muscular activity involved in the use of two different types of computer mouseInt J Occup Saf Ergon143305311
54.
JohnsonPBlackstoneJM2007Children and gender: Differences in exposure and how anthropometric differences could be incorporated into the design of computer input devicesScand J Work Environ HealthSuppl 32632
55.
JungK2013Effects of slanted ergonomic mice on task performance and subjective responsesAppl ErgonS0003-68701300128210.1016/j.apergo.2013.06.004
56.
FeathersDJRollingsKHedgeA2013Alternative computer mouse designs: Performance, posture, and subjective evaluations for college students aged 18-25Work44Suppl 1S115S122
57.
LeeTH2005Ergonomic comparison of operating a built-in touch-pad pointing device and a trackball mouse on posture and muscle activityPercept Mot Skills1013730736
58.
SutterCZiefleM2005Interacting with notebook input devices: An analysis of motor performance and user’s experienceHum Factors471169187Spring
59.
ArmbrusterCSutterCZiefleM2007Notebook input devices put to the age test: The usability of trackpoint and touchpad for middle-aged adultsErgonomics503426445
60.
MarklinRWSimoneauGG2004Design features of alternative computer keyboards: A review of experimental dataJ Orthop Sports Phys Ther3410638649
61.
van GalenGPLieskerHde HaanA2007Effects of a vertical keyboard design on typing performance, user comfort and muscle tensionAppl Ergon38199107
62.
McLooneHEJacobsonMHeggCJohnsonPW2010User-centered design and evaluation of a next generation fixed-split ergonomic keyboardWork374445456
63.
RempelDNathan-RobertsDChenBYOdellD2009The effects of split keyboard geometry on upper body posturesErgonomics521104111
64.
ParkKSHongGBLeeS2012Fatigue problems in remote pointing and the use of an upper-arm supportInt J Ind Ergon423293303
65.
ShinGZhuX2011User discomfort, work posture and muscle activity while using a touchscreen in a desktop PC settingErgonomics548733744
66.
KimYLeeGAJoDYangUKimGParkJ2011Analysis on virtual interaction-induced fatigue and difficulty in manipulation for interactive 3D gaming console. Paper presented at: IEEE international conference on consumer electronics, Las Vegas, USA
67.
KarlqvistLKBernmarkEEkenvallLHagbergMIsakssonARostoT1998Computer mouse position as a determinant of posture, muscular load and perceived exertionScand J Work Environ Health2416273
68.
DennerleinJTJohnsonPW2006Changes in upper extremity biomechanics across different mouse positions in a computer workstationErgonomics1514561469
69.
CookCJKothiyalK1998Influence of mouse position on muscular activity in the neck, shoulder and arm in computer usersAppl Ergon296439443
70.
SrinivasanDMathiassenSE2012Motor variability in occupational health and performanceClin Biomech2710979993
71.
FischerSLMarshallMMWoodcockK2012Musculoskeletal disorders in sign language interpreters: A systematic review and conceptual model of musculoskeletal disorder developmentWork422173184
72.
Simonsson Huck A. Exploring gesture based interaction and visualizations for supporting collaboration [Bachelor thesis]. Kalmar, Sweden: Linnaeus University, 2011
73.
CookCBurgess-LimerickRPapaliaS2004The effect of upper extremity support on upper extremity posture and muscle activity during keyboard useAppl Ergon353285292
74.
NagPKPalSNagAVyasH2009Influence of arm and wrist support on forearm and back muscle activity in computer keyboard operationAppl Ergon402286291
75.
WonEJJohnsonPWPunnettLDennerleinJT2009Upper extremity biomechanics in computer tasks differ by genderJ Electromyogr Kinesiol193428436
76.
LaursenBJensenBR2000Shoulder muscle activity in young and older people during a computer mouse taskClin BiomechS15Suppl 13033
77.
Bruno GarzaJLEijckelhofBHHuysmansMACatalanoPJKatzJNJohnsonPWvan DieenJHvan der BeekAJDennerleinJT2013The effect of over-commitment and reward on trapezius muscle activity and shoulder, head, neck, and torso postures during computer use in the fieldAm J Ind Med10.1002/ajim.22192
