With progressing technology in the portable computing field, laptops are now integral for work, home and social settings. Different working postures adopted by laptop users impose different loads on the relevant muscles, which can be associated with musculoskeletal discomfort in the various body regions. Some Arabic and Asian cultures adopted postures are not well investigated, particularly for the 20–30 years age-group.
OBJECTIVE:
This study compared muscle activity in the cervical spine, arm, and wrist among different laptop workstation setups.
METHODS:
In this cross-sectional study, 23 healthy female university students (age = 24.2±2.28 years, range 20–26 years) performed a standardized 10 minute typing task in four different laptop workstation setups: DESK, SOFA, GROUND sitting with back support, and laptop table (LAP-Tab). Differences between electromyography (EMG) muscle activity recorded in the trapezius (TR), cervical extensors (CE), deltoid (DEL), and wrist extensors (WE) were determined using one-way repeated ANOVA measures with a post-hoc Bonferroni test.
RESULTS:
Significantly higher muscle activity was observed respectively in the workstations of DESK > LAP-Tab > SOFA > GROUND. Significant differences were found between WE muscle activity and the three other muscle groups (p < 0.001). There was a significant interaction between workstations and muscle activity (F(9,264) = 3.81, p < 0.001, = 0.11), where the WE and DEL muscles showed respectively higher and lower muscle activity in all setups.
CONCLUSION:
Muscles showed variable activity in different workstations such that the GROUND workstation provided the minimum load, while the DESK workstation showed the maximum load on the measured muscle groups. These findings require further investigation in different cultural and gender specific groups.
EmersonS, EmersonK, FedorczykJ.
Computer workstation ergonomics: Current evidence for evaluation, corrections, and recommendations for remote evaluation. Journal of Hand Therapy. 2021;34(2):166–78. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jht.2021.04.002].
2.
Schulz van EndertT.
Addictive use of digital devices in young children: Associations with delay discounting, self-control and academic performance. PLoS One. 2021;16(6):e0253058. [PMC8219150] [10.1371/journal.pone.0253058].
3.
JiangB, SchmillenR, SullivanWC.
How to Waste a Break: Using Portable Electronic Devices Substantially Counteracts Attention Enhancement Effects of Green Spaces. Environment and Behavior. 2018;51(9-10):1133–60. [10.1177/0013916518788603].
4.
BerkhoutAL, Hendriksson-LarsenK, BongersP.
The effect of using a laptopstation compared to using a standard laptop PC on the cervical spine torque, perceived strain and productivity. Applied Ergonomics. 2004;35(2):147–52.
5.
MoffetH, et al.
Influence of laptop computer design and working position on physical exposure variables. Clinical Biomechanics. 2002;17(5):368–75.
GoldJ, et al.
Characterization of posture and comfort in laptop users in non-desk settings. Applied Ergonomics. 2012;43(2):392–9.
9.
StrakerL, et al.
The impact of computer display height and desk design on 3D posture during information technology work by young adults. Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology. 2008;18(2):336–49.
GreigAM, StrakerLM, BriggsAM.
Cervical erector spinae and upper trapezius muscle activity in children using different information technologies. Physiotherapy. 2005;91(2):119–26.
GerdingT, et al.
An assessment of ergonomic issues in the home offices of university employees sent home due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Work. 2021;68(4):981–92.
14.
ArgusM, PääsukeM. Using a laptop computer for work: musculoskeletal disorders and the functional characteristics of the neck in comparison with the users of desktop computers. 2021.
15.
ArshadMA, ShamsudinMZ, MustafaMJA.
Laptop use and upper extremities musculoskeletal disorders among higher learning students. MAEH Journal of Environmental Health. 2020;2(2):1–4.
16.
WerthA, Babski-ReevesK.
Effects of portable computing devices on posture, muscle activation levels and efficiency. Applied Ergonomics. 2014;45(6):1603–9. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2014.05.008].
17.
HeidariH, et al.
Ergonomic posture analysis of different postures in laptop users at non-official places and related musculoskeletal disorders by rapid upper limb assessment method. Advances in Human Biology. 2019;9(2):135–42. [10.4103/aihb.aihb_85_18].
18.
OsamaM, AliS, MalikRJ.
Posture related musculoskeletal discomfort and its association with computer use among university students. J Pak Med Assoc. 2018;68(4):639–41.
19.
IntoloP, et al.
Analysis of neck and shoulder postures, and muscle activities relative to perceived pain during laptop computer use at a low-height table, sofa and bed. Work. 2019;63(3):361–7.
20.
BubricK, HedgeA.
Differential patterns of laptop use and associated musculoskeletal discomfort in male and female college students. Work. 2016;55(3):663–71.
21.
AsundiK, et al.
Notebook computer use on a desk, lap and lap support: effects on posture, performance and comfort. Ergonomics. 2010;53(1):74–82.
22.
Chang C-H, et al.
Where and how college students use their laptop computers. inProceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting. 2008. SAGE Publications Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA.
23.
YuZ, et al.
Differences in posture kinematics between using a tablet, a laptop, and a desktop computer in sitting and in standing. Work. 2018;61:257–66. [10.3233/WOR-182796].
24.
JainR, MeenaML, RanaKB.
Risk factors of musculoskeletal symptoms among mobile device users during work from home, International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics. 2021;1–7.
25.
ZumstegJW, et al.
The Effect of Carpal Tunnel Release on Typing Performance. The Journal of Hand Surgery. 2017;42(1):16–23.e2. [10.1016/j.jhsa.2016.10.005].
26.
CaneiroJP, et al.
The influence of different sitting postures on head/neck posture and muscle activity. Manual Therapy. 2010;15(1):54–60.
27.
WangX, et al.
The effects of using a footrest during computer tasks varying in complexity and temporal demands: A postural and electromyographic analysis. Applied Ergonomics. 2022;98:103550.
28.
MokhtariniaH, et al.
The new” Tehran Back Belt”: Design then testing during a simulated sitting task improved biomechanical spine muscle activity. Health Promotion Perspectives. 2019;9(2):115.
29.
FreivaldsA, et al.
Effect of belt/bucket interface in apple harvesting. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics. 2006;36(11):1005–10.
30.
SyamalaKR, et al.
Armrests and back support reduced biomechanical loading in the neck and upper extremities during mobile phone use. Applied Ergonomics. 2018;73:48–54. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2018.06.003].
31.
RempelP, et al.
The effect of two alternative arm supports on shoulder and upper back muscle loading during pipetting. Work. 2011;39(2):195–200.
32.
WerthAJ, Babski-ReevesK.
Assessing posture while typing on portable computing devices in traditional work environments and at home. in Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting. 2012. SAGE Publications Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA.
33.
VasavadaAN, et al.
Gravitational demand on the neck musculature during tablet computer use. Ergonomics. 2015;58(6):990–1004.
34.
BlangstedAK, et al.
Voluntary low-force contraction elicits prolonged low-frequency fatigue and changes in surface electromyography and mechanomyography. Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology. 2005;15(2):138–48. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jelekin.2004.10.004].
35.
SeghersJ, JochemA, SpaepenA.
Posture, muscle activity and muscle fatigue in prolonged VDT work at different screen height settings. Ergonomics. 2003;46(7):714–30.
36.
GerrF, MarcusM, MonteilhC.
Epidemiology of musculoskeletal disorders among computer users: lesson learned from the role of posture and keyboard use. Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology. 2004;14(1):25–31.
37.
MacLeanKFE, et al.
The role of at home workstation ergonomics∼and gender on musculoskeletal pain. Work. 2106;71:309–18. [10.3233/WOR-210692].
38.
KiaK, et al.
Differences in typing forces, muscle activity, wrist posture, typing performance, and self-reported comfort among conventional and ultra-low travel keyboards. Applied Ergonomics. 2019;74:10–16. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2018.07.014].
